Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Constitutional Referendums

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In the last 25 years, there have been eight referendums. Between 1973 and 1997, there were four—an average of one every six years. In the first year of this Labour Government, there have been a further four. It is clear that the Government believe in referendums; we all know that they plan many more. It is essential that the conduct of those referendums is above reproach, or else the suspicion will be that they are being used to direct public opinion for party political ends, rather than to determine public opinion for the public good.
There are three groups of questions which must be answered when considering referendums; why, when and how? First, why hold a referendum at all when we have a parliamentary democracy? Secondly, if the principle of referendums is accepted, when should they be held? Thirdly, if they are held, how should they be conducted?
There are those who say that it is a Government's job to govern, to make decisions and to be responsible for their effect. They argue that referendums are an abdication of that responsibility, and introduce danger and uncertainty, and that therefore they should never take place.
The alternative point of view is held by the Minister without Portfolio, who, earlier this year, said in Germany:
It may be that the era of purely representative democracy is coming to an end.
He added that its place would be taken by
plebiscites, focus groups, lobbies, citizens' movements and the Internet.
I do not subscribe to either of those extremist wings. I understand why the Government's thought policeman would want to bypass considered parliamentary scrutiny and control, and I deplore it. I agree that the Government alone should be held to account for the effect of their decisions, but there may be times when Parliament will want to consult the people. The question is when.

Mr. Eric Forth: The question is not just when. If my hon. Friend is going to argue in favour of referendums, I hope that he will address the question whether we can always reduce a complex issue to a sufficiently simple question to get a legitimate answer in a referendum.

Mr. Sayeed: I am profoundly grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, which leads me very nicely to my next remark.
As a believer in representative parliamentary democracy, I am clear that referendums should be used only under certain circumstances. The first is when the matter is of great significance. The next is when its effect will be profound, enduring and not subject to a change of Government. The next criteria is when the detailed facts are widely known, understood and—to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—capable of being reduced to a clear and simple single question.
How do we achieve that? There can be no definitive answer, because it depends on the circumstances, but guidelines can be formulated. First, referendums are not a substitute for parliamentary democracy. They must be used only to advise Parliament, not to dictate to or coerce it.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Switzerland, where, because of the cantonal system, they prefer the idea of a referendum? Consequently, the most reactionary legislation—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should like to see the hon. Gentleman's handsome face.

Mr. Fabricant: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Consequently, in Switzerland, the most reactionary legislation has been passed on immigration, women's suffrage and capital punishment—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might welcome, but which does not lead to liberal democracy.

Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Referendums—such as proposition 13, in California—should be used only extremely sparingly, and not as a substitute for parliamentary democracy. This is the place where we can argue out the issues.
Referendums should be used only on matters of great and lasting significance, and when the consequences are appreciated and the need for change is demonstrable and coherent, and spans party political divides.
Referendums should be used only when all reasonable points of view have an equal chance of being heard. Electors affected by any decision in a referendum should be entitled to take some part in that referendum.
No referendum should occur until Parliament has considered, debated and amended the legislation that would implement the proposals that may be put before the people.
If those guidelines are not followed, referendums might be used—I believe that they are being used—to stifle debate and to bushwhack the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, to forestall any hint of such developments, the Government should, at the outset, clearly state what they consider to be the minimum threshold and participation rate of any referendum.
We should now consider whether the four recent referendums have met any of the criteria that any reasonable person would expect to be applied in a referendum. We should then go on to determine how we can ensure that, in future, conduct of referendums is not only fair but agreed to be fair. If we do not ensure such


agreement, I believe that the results of referendums will be in dispute and their consequences rejected, and democracy will be held in contempt.
In last year's referendum on Scottish devolution, six out of 10 eligible Scottish electors voted. Three quarters of those who did so voted in support of a Scottish Parliament. As a Conservative and a Unionist, I regret the result, although I accept that it reflected the Scottish view at that time. However, as an honestly conducted referendum, it failed. It was pre-legislative, so the detailed facts were not known. The result is being used to coerce Parliament. Public money was used to promote the yes vote, but there was no similar funding of the no campaign.
In the Scottish referendum, English electors were disfranchised. Yet—after that referendum, and even after the start of the Scottish Parliament—the poorer English regions will continue to fund richer Scottish regions. In this place, Scotland will continue to be over-represented by Scottish Members, with greater powers but fewer responsibilities than their English counterparts.
The referendum in Wales was an even greater fiasco. The result was a flop: the votes of one quarter of the electorate were deemed by the Government to be decisive. Worse still, that pitiful result—which was achieved only with public money given to the yes campaign—was placed in doubt because of allegations about how the ballot was conducted. Although some of the allegations were made by the Secretary of State for Wales's own constituency Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman refused to clear up the mess and establish an independent inquiry. In London, the turnout for the referendum was even lower than it was in Wales.
Unless the Government plan on using referendums as a party political tool—if they do, they must say so—they must mend their ways. I have stated some guidelines that I believe should be followed. The constitution unit's commission on the conduct of referendums has made even more detailed recommendations. Today, I hope that the Minister will give us his considered response to the safeguards that both the unit and I have proposed. Above all, we need today to hear from the Government an acknowledgement that referendums are too important to be entrusted to the self-serving whims of any one political party.
The House will want to hear the Minister accept that, if the results of referendums are to be above suspicion, beyond reproach and not treated with contempt, their conduct should be determined by an independent body—comprising the brightest and the best, encompassing all political parties but dominated by no one political party, and dedicated to the impartial questioning of our political masters, the people.

Mr. Eric Forth: I should like quickly to make a few points, as I am aware that there is little time, and many hon. Members would like to speak in this debate.
As we have no constitution in the United Kingdom, it is doubly—trebly—important that, when we undertake to change our electoral or political arrangements, we have in place proper safeguards. Generally, I am rather happy that, unlike many countries, we do not have a written

constitution, which tend to be a hidebound way of approaching matters. I think that, over the years and down the centuries, our friends in the United States have come to regret their written constitution.
Nevertheless, as we do not have such a constitution, surely it is incumbent on hon. Members—even more so on the Government—to guarantee that safeguards are in place when contemplating the type of changes described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), primarily to ensure that the Government cannot change the rules that govern their own election. Ultimately, that is what we are talking about.
My hon. Friend gave as examples the referendums held in Scotland, Wales and London. However, the background threat is that the Government might eventually propose changes to the very system by which they themselves will seek to be re-elected. That is the biggest danger of all. Today, at the very least, we must receive from the Government cast-iron assurances that they would do no such thing—that, without first establishing proper safeguards, they would never embark on a course leading them to change the rules by which they offer themselves for re-election. Such safeguards are essential.
My hon. Friend also discussed the questions that should perhaps be asked in a referendum. We have some good recent examples of how the choice of questions can go badly wrong.
The example foremost in my mind—I suspect that it is foremost also in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is in the Chamber—is the question, or lack of questions, asked in the London referendum. We believe that, at the very least, the people of London were entitled to a say in whether they wanted an executive mayor in London and/or an assembly. However, the Government out-manoeuvred everyone else, and insisted on asking only one question, whereas two quite separate issues were bundled into one question—for the sake of political expediency. The example demonstrates the type of danger that we face.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been or will be asked what they want, but England has never been asked what it wants. When will the English be asked a question in a referendum? That question has to be answered. To date, the Government have been able to decide—on the basis of political convenience—what they ask, when they ask it, and whom they ask. What we need to know is, when is the bulk of the United Kingdom's population going to be asked some questions and have an opportunity to give an answer? We might find the answers interesting, if the right questions were asked.
The only other matter I want to mention in this context is European economic and monetary union. It is obvious that the Government are going to wait until such time as they consider propitious for the answer they want before putting the questions, which illustrates all too well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.
There is also the issue of reversibility, or, when can we return to the question? New Zealand is the most interesting example available of this issue. A few years ago, the people of New Zealand were asked the wrong question about changing their political electoral system, and they answered that they wanted something different. They got something different—a proportional system, which did not give them the Government they expected,


because of back-room deals between political parties. Already, only a few years later, serious consideration is being given to asking the questions whether the change has proved satisfactory, and whether they should go back to what they had before.
That raises an important question: does a referendum answer last for ever? Surely not, but that raises the question, at what point can we legitimately return to the issue and say that, although we decided something by referendum, we now believe in the light of experience that we made a mistake, and that we should return to what we had before or move on to something else?

Mr. Fabricant: On the issue of getting it wrong, does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that market research companies have found that asking simple questions with yes or no answers results in the most inaccurate response? If the Government have their way, are we not likely to see a drift away from referenda and towards focus groups; and would that not be far worse?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suspect that the Government may say that the country is just one enormous focus group, and that endless referendums are an adequate way of consulting the people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth: The Minister may say no—in any case, it would be interesting to hear his response to that point.
I hope that, at some stage, the Minister will give a strong indication of his view on the extent to which it would be legitimate—indeed, necessary in many cases—to return to the issue once the question had been asked, and in the light of further experience. Any of us who have been to New Zealand know well how bitterly disappointed the people are at having been misled by the question put to them and by the change in their electoral system, and how desperately they want to go back to what they had before.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am most grateful for your allowing me to raise a point of order that relates to the language in which we communicate in this Chamber. Your predecessor once rebuked me for using the language of the Common Market: I said "faute de mieux", for which he immediately called me to order. The word "referendum" is being scattered about, but, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) used the correct plural, I have often heard colleagues refer to "referendums", which is an exceedingly ugly term.
May we have from you, Madam Speaker, a ruling, or at least an expression of preference, as to whether we continue to use the Latin word, which many would think historically appropriate in the Chamber, or whether you have no objection to the continual anglicisation of the term and the use of the word "referendums"? Were you to express a preference for the Latin form, which I hope you will, you would certainly be striking a blow for classical revivalism.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises an esoteric point, albeit hardly a point of order: more a matter

of taste. I notice that, in the public Bills list, the word "referendums" is used in relation to Scotland and Wales. The word "referendum" was first used in English 150 years ago, according to the Oxford English dictionary, which I have just consulted, and I imagine that, after 150 years, the House is now used to it. The plural is a matter of taste, but I have always preferred the use of the English language to any Latin form; I hope that that provides some guidance.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Coming from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), that was a wonderfully communautaire point of order. In France, they have Government bodies that determine how the language should be used, but that is the first time I have ever heard the Speaker of the House of Commons being asked to rule on which words are appropriate to the English language. The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the interesting question of "referendums" versus "referenda", because the subject is a topical one, with several referendums already having been held, and more in prospect.
I take the view that, in general, in a parliamentary democracy, Parliament should decide, but there is obviously a case for saying that it is appropriate to refer major constitutional issues to the people. The risk is that one can get into a la carte choices on which decisions are appropriate to be referred to the people, and which should be left to Parliament.
It should be possible to take such decisions on an objective basis: for example, many people outside would love to have a referendum on whether capital punishment should be reintroduced, but that is a policy issue, which is most appropriately dealt with by Parliament; but there is a case for referring amendments to the constitution and to the way in which the country is governed to the people, as we have done.
The speeches so far have addressed specific concerns that I share about the current status of referenda in our constitution. The idea of having a referendum on the establishment of a Parliament in Scotland was sold as a means of entrenching the position of the Scottish Parliament, but Conservative Members have shown that they cannot wait for an opportunity to overturn the decision of the Scottish people.

Mr. James Gray: I just wanted to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "referenda". Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), I wanted to point out that "referendum" is the gerundive—in other words, it means "requiring to be discussed"; therefore, in English the correct plural is "referendums", not "referenda".

Mr. Home Robertson: It is quite a long time since I failed my Latin A-level, so I shall not pursue that point.
The questions that require clarification are: what the criteria for holding a referendum should be; how a referendum should be conducted; who should decide which issues are appropriate to be referred to the people by referendum; and, above all, what the status of a referendum result is at the end of the day.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) acknowledged that we have just had a fairly dramatic and conclusive result to a referendum in Scotland, on a perfectly respectable turnout of 61 per cent. of the people, 75 per cent. of whom voted yes to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Politically, that should be the end of the story—the subject was debated for many years, and a conclusive decision has been given, not only in the referendum, but in the results in Scotland at successive general elections. However, constitutionally, it is still technically possible to dismiss that result, and for Parliament to legislate in a different direction altogether.
Speeches from Conservative Members—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) used the term "reversibility"—show that they are already questioning the validity or the binding nature of the outcome of the Scottish referendum, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether it would be possible to ensure that, when legislation is enacted with the specific endorsement of a referendum, that fact is acknowledged on the face of the Act; and to ensure that any repeal of that legislation is also subject to a referendum.
It would be scandalous if, after 20 years' debate about home rule for Scotland, successive general election results endorsing the establishment of a Parliament for Scotland, and an overwhelming referendum decision to establish a Scottish Parliament, some future Government, simply on a political whim, could turn the whole thing on its head.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that argument would have much greater force if one had post-legislative referendums rather than pre-legislative ones? Is not part of the problem, which casts doubt on what is expressed in referendums, the way in which subsequent legislation often differs from promises made before the referendum?

Mr. Home Robertson: That is an illustration of the sort of problem that I have in mind. If there is any doubt, anywhere, there is always somebody, usually on the Conservative Benches, who wants to nit-pick. Who better than the hon. Gentleman to fulfil that role?
Endorsement of legislation by referendum should be specifically referred to in that legislation. There should be an implicit requirement that any radical repeal of the legislation—I am not saying that it should not be possible to amend legislation—should also be subject to a referendum, so that no future Parliament can repeal an Act that is entrenched by a referendum.
I fear that Conservative Members are doing themselves no good when they call into question the validity of the result of the referendum in Scotland. A Parliament is to be established in Scotland, and we want it to be a success and to play its role in the framework of the United Kingdom. Endless nit-picking can only endanger that settlement.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am glad of this timely opportunity to speak on the subject of referenda—the option to my taste—since, under this Government, they have once again become a familiar part

of our political life We have had referenda in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which we fully supported as clear issues of constitutional significance.
The referendum on London government was less clear-cut, but, on balance, still necessary as a means of moving to regional self-government. Liberal Democrats shared many of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the question that was used. We would have preferred two questions, and believe that the Government cheated, to an extent, by using the one-question device.
People continue to be concerned about the use of referenda, mainly because the power to hold or withhold them is still in the Government's hands. There is a complete lack of rules on when or where referenda may or may not be used, although they are perfectly legitimate in an open democratic society with a strong constitutional framework. Indeed, we want it to become mandatory that constitutional change is contingent on support in a referendum. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) described that as the "why" decision on holding a referendum. We would ultimately like that enshrined in a written constitution which sets out conditions for holding such a referendum.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about consulting the people over major constitutional change. He will know that, in Wales, the decision was taken—although only one in four people wanted it—to set up a non-tax-raising assembly. Why did his party try to amend the legislation so that, in future, the Welsh assembly could introduce tax-raising powers, without consulting the Welsh people?

Mr. Allan: The specific measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers was part of my party's open, stated position at the general election—our manifesto commitment. Colleagues in the Welsh team decided to take that forward to air the issue during the passage of the legislation. It is perfectly acceptable if they choose to do so.

Mr. Grieve: Does not that precisely illustrate the point that I was trying to make about the problems of pre-legislative referendums? In, for example, the Welsh referendum, the Welsh people were offered a committee form of government as the great selling point, yet, by the time the legislation had gone through the House, a sort of cabinet government was proposed. How can the wishes of people be reflected in pre-legislative referendums?

Mr. Allan: Although I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point that post-legislative referenda are preferable, there were precedents—Labour and Liberal manifesto commitments and a pre-election agreement—for the legislation that has been taken forward in this Parliament, which meant that the measures would progress quite rapidly. That was made clear at the general election.
Rather than using examples of perverse use of referenda in countries such as Switzerland, which I accept has not been helpful, we should look across the sea to the Irish example. They have a written constitution, which they have successfully amended and updated through the


use of referenda. They have managed to avoid many of the European arguments that we have had in this country, because every stage of ceding power to the European Union has been accompanied by a legitimate decision of the Irish people through the use of referenda.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not important that there should be a separate constitutional body to make regulations to control referenda? In the Republic, the funding for both the yes and the no campaigns is equal, whereas, in our situation, Government funding tries to manipulate the will of the electorate. Ministers make promises during the referendum campaign that are not normally fulfilled.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman must have picked up a copy of my speaking notes. I was about to say that we should have an independent electoral commission to oversee the use of referenda, particularly as we are expecting one on the fundamental issue of moving towards a more proportional voting system, with all that that entails, and—possibly—one on the single European currency, which will be hugely contentious, not least on the Opposition Benches.
We need rules that are accepted by all sides, and an independent statutory commission to oversee them. We have made clear our support for a permanent electoral commission to oversee the administration of elections. Such a body was recommended by the 1991 all-party Hansard Society commission on elections. Parliament could give an electoral commission such responsibility for referenda. The commission would organise matters such as the poll, the count and the declaration of results, as well as overseeing the wording of questions. Parliament could pass primary legislation on matters specific to particular referenda as they arise.
The commission would be a procedural body. It would not help to make the decision about the constitutional status of referenda. We should consider whether referenda are mandatory or advisory. The Government certainly have enough access to private polling and focus groups without the need to transform the people of the United Kingdom into yet another one. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that referenda should not be used as focus groups. Their role needs to be clearer.
Given our present lack of a constitution, we need to consider thresholds. I am convinced that they have standing neither in constitutional theory nor in electoral practice. We would all like 100 per cent. of the electorate to vote in general elections. The precise percentage of voter turnout in a general election in no way affects the binding quality of the result. I would be interested to know at what levels hon. Members who propose participation rates and thresholds think they should be set for the House in order to give the Government legitimacy—the same principles apply.
We should like Parliament to set up an effective information campaign on a referendum, and for a decent period to be provided for it. We would suggest three weeks—as there is before a general election—to debate a referendum.
In that time, the electoral commission would ensure that both yes and no campaigns had equal access to resources. It must introduce the kind of legislation that applies to a general election, covering limits on spending and

broadcasting, and the way in which literature is produced. Having advanced toward a written constitution and an electoral commission, an agreed role for referenda could be established, so that there would no longer be any need to nit-pick over thresholds or the conduct of campaigns, as we have unfortunately seen over the important constitutional referenda since the change of Government last year.

Mr. Martin Linton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on raising this subject. Many points need to be clarified about the use of referendums—starting, of course, with the plural of the word. In our own referendum on the plural of the word, the House is 3:2 in favour of the use of "referendums".
I can report to the House that, during my former employment at The Guardian, a long, almost religious debate took place over many years, before the issue was finally settled in the style book in favour of "referendums". The argument was that the word "referendum" is a Latin gerundive, not a noun, but has been taken into English as a noun, so the Latin plural is not relevant.

Mr. Home Robertson: When did The Guardian ever spell anything right?

Mr. Linton: The days when misspellings frequently appeared in The Guardian are many years in the past. My hon. Friend shows his age by remembering the days of bad proofreading, before new technology arrived. Certainly The Guardian always had an intended spelling—an ideal spelling to which it aspired and which, in the later editions, it usually achieved. Perhaps my hon. Friend, in Scotland, may have read the earlier editions, which were always riddled with literals.
There is a good argument for the use of "referendums", which is that, in Latin, the word "referendum" is simply a heading for a list to be referred. "Est referendum" means simply that something is to be referred. If there were two items, the heading would be "Sunt referenda", but if there were only one—[Interruption.] It is simply a Latin phrase.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, in Latin, the gerundive is much stronger than in the English language. Its use implies not simply something to be discussed, but something that should be discussed—that the discussion must take place.

Mr. Linton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I say that although this is an interesting debate about the origin of the word "referendum" and its plural forms, I should be grateful if we could now return to the substance of the debate? I also remind all hon. Members that many people still want to speak, and if others make their contributions reasonably brief, more will be able to do so.

Mr. Linton: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My substantive argument is that several features of referendums in this country need to be established. One is the funding of the two sides. Another is entrenchment, in the sense discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Surely a measure passed as the result of a referendum should be repealed only after a subsequent referendum. There is also the question of reversibility, as raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)-although the issue is not always as simple as he made it seem.
On thresholds, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that it is nonsense to try to insist on a particular participation level for all referendums. As we saw in the London referendum, the turnout depends on the level of controversy or opposition to the proposition being put forward.
In a sense, a referendum is a safeguard for the public, enabling them to scream, "No, we don't like that." In London, the issue was, correctly, put to a referendum, because it was assumed that there would be party political controversy, or at least public controversy, on the subject, and there would be a lot of publicity and a high participation rate.
As it turned out, that did not happen. My local authority spent thousands of pounds issuing a glossy leaflet to put through every front door opposing the referendum, but one week later it announced that, as the leader of its party had said that the Conservatives would support the referendum, their opposition was of no avail, and the council tax payers of Wandsworth should forget about the glossy leaflet and support the referendum.
The promised opposition never materialised. Television crews from London Weekend scoured London looking for plausible groups to advocate a no vote, so that they could cover it on their evening newscasts. Without an opposition, the media could not cover the two sides of the debate, so they gave it no publicity. Consequently, although the turnout was reasonable, considering that the referendum was held on the same day as the local elections, it was not very high.
That does not invalidate the result. It simply means that, because it met so little opposition, the issue referred to the people of London did not spark off the kind of debate that would have produced a high turnout. The result should not be condemned on the grounds that the proposal received so little opposition. It would be nonsense to say that, because the turnout did not reach a certain level, the result should not be accepted.
The corollary of that argument would be that only on hotly controversial issues would the turnout pass the threshold. Indeed, that idea affected what happened with the Scotland Bill in the 1970s, when a threshold was inserted.

Mr. Fabricant: Would the hon. Gentleman say that the Welsh referendum had passed that threshold?

Mr. Linton: I am arguing against the use of thresholds. Thresholds are nonsense, because participation will depend on the degree to which people disagree with the proposition. Often, something put to the people in a referendum sparks little controversy and is passed easily.

People would go and vote if they thought that the proposition was likely to be defeated, but as it is not they do not bother. That does not invalidate the result.
There are two further arguments about the New Zealand and London referendums. I do not recognise the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the New Zealand "preferendum". There were two referendums on the voting system. In the first, the people of New Zealand clearly indicated that they wanted a change—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Of what?"] They wanted to change the system.
A commission was set up and recommended an alternative—the mixed member proportional, or MMP, system. That was put to the people in another referendum and they voted in favour of it, despite a well financed campaign for the first-past-the-post system. That campaign spent much more money than its opponents could find, but, despite the overwhelming superiority of resources behind the first-past-the-post system, MMP won fairly and squarely. It was clearly the expressed view of the New Zealand people that that system should be used.
The fact that Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First party, allowed himself to be elected as an opponent of the National party only to announce three weeks later that he would support that party, is a function not of the voting system but of the fact that Winston Peters changed his mind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should speak for himself.
In the previous New Zealand election, carried out under the first-past-the-post system, Winston Peters would have been in exactly the same situation—holding the balance of power—had it not been for a handful of votes. Only after the final recount under first past the post did it turn out that he would not hold the balance of power. Had he won that vote, he would have been able to do exactly the same after the previous election. That shows that the situation was a function of the behaviour of Winston Peters rather than of the voting system.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what that has to do with today's debate, as opposed to yesterday's debate?

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is the Speaker?

Mr. Linton: I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are arguing about the use of referendums, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that what happened in the New Zealand referendum showed that the use of referendums was invalid. I am pointing out that the use of referendums in New Zealand was perfectly legitimate. The decision was clearly arrived at, despite the overwhelming superiority of the resources deployed against it. Nothing in the New Zealand experience should disillusion us about the use of referendums; rather, it should disillusion us about the election of politicians who subsequently change their minds.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am sorry that I was slow to rise to my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was stunned by the prospect that the debate might be returning to the track on which it started.
Today the House has the opportunity to reassert its authority. One of its principal functions is to hold the Executive to account. With a Government majority of 179—and, I must add, the comfortable pact between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—such issues are left to the Conservative Opposition to raise. They are of vast importance, and I am appalled by the low attendance on the Government Benches.
Not content with the mathematical domination of this place, Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, have decided to ignore the House. They declare that the people should decide. Of course, there is a compelling argument that a Government should listen to the people and consult. Certainly it would be wrong to proceed otherwise on issues such as the single currency.
I believe that my constituents have already made a choice—having heard, questioned and endorsed my views, they sent me to Westminster to decide. Now, however, the peoples of the nations that make up the United Kingdom are being sent to the polls again and again. A referendum was held in London about whether to have a mayor, and the Prime Minister promises that more will follow.
I do not rule out referendums altogether, especially on matters of major constitutional reform, but where does one draw the line? Why, having had referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, should not we have a referendum on English regional government? Perhaps the Government draw the line where they fear that they will not win, even though they have the power greatly to improve the chance that a referendum will go their way—they set the question and the programme for the vote, and decide how the vote should be construed. In reality, the people do not decide—the question is rigged, and the answer is therefore open to interpretation.
Leaving aside the point that referendums undermine the power and the authority—and, indeed, the sovereignty—of Parliament, I believe that the time has come to set out some rules. A framework is now needed—that is the point of this debate. There must be firm rules, so that the system cannot be abused. Issues of time allocation and broadcasting must be addressed.
We must tackle four key areas. First, we must decide what subjects are appropriate for a referendum. For example, having voted on a tartan tax, should the people of Scotland—and the rest of us—now have the opportunity to vote on all new taxes? Secondly, should the result of a referendum be binding on the Executive? At what level does a referendum have moral authority—is it 50 per cent. of those who vote, or 50 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote? If a threshold based on those who are eligible to vote is good enough for trade union membership, should not that principle be extended? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Many people in Scotland are interested to know why the Conservative party did not call for a threshold in the London referendum, given that it so loudly called for one in the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Why does it not argue that the result of the London referendum is invalid, as no great threshold was reached?

Mr. Fraser: We called for a 50 per cent. threshold, although I shall not dwell on that, as we do not have much time.
Thirdly, we should ask how the question should be framed to command universal, or near-universal, acceptance. I believe that an independent body should devise the question, so that the charge that the question had been fixed can be avoided.
Fourthly, and most important, has the issue been closely defined? How do the people know, in detail, what the consequences of a yes of no result will be? Has a problem with existing arrangements been identified before the referendum takes place? Has a White Paper been published or a Bill drafted? Unless we deal with those questions, it will continue to seem as though the purpose of the referendum is to short-circuit debate in the House, so that Labour Members can repeat, parrot-like, "The people have decided."
The referendum has been used by every dictator in history. It would be most inappropriate to suggest that the Prime Minister is a dictator—I would not dream of doing so—but one has to question whether the plebiscite is a vehicle for true democracy or a vehicle to dupe the people, so that the Government receive blanket approval to do what they please. I fear that experience since May last year suggests the latter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said, in Scotland and Wales the referendums were held before Parliament could scrutinise, amend and enact the legislation.
The Labour Government were elected to govern, to make decisions, and to be responsible for the effects of those decisions. Why do they accept the responsibility of government, but avoid the responsibility of making decisions? As Lord Lawson once said, quoting Pierre Mendes France:
To govern is to choose. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern.

Mr. David Maclean: Constitutionally in this country, decisions have been made by Members elected to the House of Commons. The public have never questioned the integrity of the decisions made in the House by a majority of the governing party—[Interruption.] They may question it at times, but they accept the validity of the right of the majority party to implement measures—they know that there are rules to govern the election of Members of Parliament.
There is a brief period after elections when individuals may be challenged on their election expenses, but no one challenges the Representation of the People Acts, which lay down rules governing our election. All the important decisions that are taken in the House have their roots in a system of rules laid down in legislation to deal with how Members are elected, the expenses that may be incurred and the broadcasting of elections. That system has worked exceptionally well.
I do not intend to quibble with the results of the various referenda, although I understand why some people nit-pick—to use the word of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—the results, given the way in which the Government chose to conduct the referenda. We are moving into a new political landscape—I do not particularly like it, as it has not benefited my party in the past year—but, if that is to involve the regular use of referenda, we must have rules


to govern how they are conducted, just as we have legislation to govern how we, the current decision makers, are elected to the House of Commons.
As many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the short time available, that is the only argument I want to make today, but the Minister must address it in all seriousness. I regret that this is the second consecutive day when I have had to say that the Home Secretary is an honourable and decent man, but he must see the validity of the argument. If referenda are to become a regular part of the political scene, they must be governed by detailed rules on timing, the question asked and all the other points that have been raised today—whether the referendum should be pre-legislative, whether it should be binding, and whether there should be a threshold.
Even though, God help us, there are already 150 review groups and task forces telling the Government what to do, we need one more. We need a properly independent commission, not the partial—or, as the Home Secretary described it yesterday, "relatively independent"—Jenkins commission. 
Unlike the Cookie whitewash inquiry, the commission should be chaired by a properly independent judge; it should comprise not necessarily the great and the good, but those who understand these things and who can recommend the procedures that should be followed. All players in the House will accept the recommendations of a commission only if that commission is independent, with the Home Office acting as an able secretariat; we shall accept referenda only if there are rules, guidelines and legislation to govern how they are conducted.
It is no good for the Labour party to complain that individual Members of Parliament are quibbling about referenda. Of course Members of Parliament from other parties will quibble, as, at the moment, referenda are perceived to be set by Millbank and the Labour party hierarchy—they are phrased, timed and manipulated by the Labour party. I believe that the Government want to use referenda as a legitimate tool of government, but referenda can be a legitimate tool of government only if they are legitimised through legislation.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Despite a leaflet being put through the letter box of every house in London, and despite the Minister for Transport in London handing out scratchcards at tube stations encouraging people to vote in the London referendum, there was a derisory turnout. Only 35 per cent. of the public voted, and about 75 per cent. either said no or expressed no opinion. In my opinion, the London referendum lacked legitimacy: its result cannot be considered representative of the overall view of Londoners. If we are to continue to have referendums as a matter of course, there should be a threshold.
On Report on the London Referendum Bill, the Opposition tabled an amendment calling for a 50 per cent. turnout, so that at least half the electorate should express a view on the proposals before them.

Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore of the view that all London borough councillors should resign, since there was a similar turnout at the local elections?
Is he also aware that 75 per cent. of the voters in Westminster did not vote for the Conservative council there?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to the second part of my point. I have no idea how many people voted for him at the general election, but I understand that it was not very many.

Mr. Allan: It was more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Ottaway: Then I wish the hon. Gentleman the best of luck.
If a proposal is of such extreme constitutional importance that it is the subject of a referendum, that raises it above the tone of normal council or parliamentary elections. If we are to change the constitutional basis of our country, surely a 50 per cent. threshold is appropriate.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman proposes a 50 per cent. turnout, but the threshold that the Conservatives tried to introduce in the Scotland Bill involved not a 50 per cent. turnout, which is normally easily surpassed—for example, in Scotland in 1979—but 40 per cent. of the total vote. Why do the Conservatives propose one threshold for London and another for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman should consider our proposals as alternatives. We are an Opposition party putting forward our ideas. I am not that familiar with Scottish affairs, but I think that a 40 per cent. yes vote was a feature of the 1979 referendum, so it would seem not illogical that the Scottish team should make a similar proposal. It is a different matter in London.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No. I am very short of time, and I have already given way twice.
I do not find it illogical to suggest that more people should express a view than not for a proposal to become binding.
My second point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and relates to the representation of the people legislation. If a television broadcaster running a London current affairs programme supported one side of the referendum, should he come off the airwaves?
In London, Mr. Trevor Phillips, the presenter of a programme called "Crosstalk", was an active member of the yes campaign. Indeed, it is rumoured that he will be a mayoral candidate for London. I make no criticism whatsoever of Mr. Trevor Phillips—indeed, I have much praise for him. He conducts his programme in a genuinely neutral way, and when I have been interviewed by him, I have never felt that his party allegiance has in any way prejudiced what he has to say. However, there was nothing in the London Referendum Bill that gave any guidance on whether he should be allowed to stay on the airwaves.
I referred the matter to the Independent Television Commission, which has a code of conduct on such matters. Its view was that the principles enshrined in the


representation of the people legislation should apply in a referendum. I do not know how it happened, but within a matter of days, Mr. Phillips came off the airwaves. However, it should not be left to Opposition Members to raise such matters with the ITC. They should be dealt with in the Bill. The position of the representation of the people legislation is far from clear. If nothing else happens, it should be incorporated into future referendum Bills.
My third and final point is whether or not there should be funding for a no campaign. In London, some £3 million was allocated to a so-called awareness programme, including the leaflets to which I referred. There was an awareness programme on the radio, and leaflets were put through every door, but there was no funding whatsoever for those who wanted to make counter-proposals or to express outright opposition. The Government believe that their proposals were put forward in a neutral way, but they were actually saying, "This is what we think—take it or leave it. Say yes or no in the referendum."
There is no justice in that attitude. It is like a jury at the Old Bailey being asked to make a judgment after hearing just the case for the prosecution, not the case for the defence. In truth, it is impossible to be neutral about a positive set of proposals. Therefore, I believe that a no or counter-proposal campaign should have the opportunity to express a view, given that so much taxpayers' money is being spent putting over the positive set of proposals.
We have had four referendums so far, and on the strength of their results, the Government believe that they have a mandate for action. There are at least two more to come—on monetary union and electoral reform. The issues require clarification. There should at least be some legislation setting up an organisation, so that they can be addressed.

Mr. Robert Syms: Referendums are becoming very much a part of our political life; they are much more common than they were, and the practice of treating the electorate as an opinion poll sample is likely to continue in future. That is dangerous in our constitution, especially as there may be a big question mark over the future of the House of Lords. A two-House system provides a check on the Government, and if the other place is weakened, watered down or abolished, the referendum may become a far more dangerous constitutional innovation.
In many nations, referendums result from citizens' action and petition; the referendum is a bottom-up procedure. In the British political context, however, it is a device of the majority party. Governments institute referendums; they decide the wording and the timing. With all the temptations of power and of government, that is pretty dangerous.
I shall not dwell on what has happened in the past; it is more important to look to the future. It is important to establish an independent commission, or at least a code of conduct, so that we all know where we stand. That is a matter not only for the Opposition but for the Government, as the majority of today may be the minority of tomorrow, and a future Government may well use the lack of rules to reverse or change the position or to promote a very different agenda.
It is sensible that rules that we all understand should apply to the body politic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said,

we make almost a fetish of rules for parliamentary elections, and agents spend all their time telling us what we can or cannot do. Yet referendums are open season: there are no tight rules.
Referendums must be seen to be fair and legitimate. If we are to face the expense and upheaval, it is in everyone's interests that they are seen to be so; that requires the establishment of a code of conduct or an independent commission.
Certain questions need to be addressed. Who may initiate a referendum, and on what issues? We must not forget that referendums can be very bad news for minorities—and in a democracy it is important to protect minorities. Who will decide the wording—the Government or a special commission? How many questions should be asked? How will the referendum be organised and financed? How should money be raised, and should there be expenditure limits? What constitutes approval? Should it be by a majority or by a percentage of the electorate? Can a question be put again? Denmark, for example, was forced to hold a second referendum, having given what might have been thought the wrong answer. Should a referendum be pre-legislative or post-legislative? Finally, what rules should govern television and media access?
Those are all important subjects. Since we started to hold referendums, many academic conferences have been held on how they should be structured. We in the political class should set ground rules that are clear, transparent and widely accepted. Then we will know when people are cheating and when they are not. If referendums are to be held, they must be fair, legitimate and accepted by all participants at least as a democratic exercise in which everyone has a chance to put their point of view.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I find myself in an unaccustomed position. Luckily, the organ grinder is here should the monkey fail.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on bringing an enormously important subject before the House. Now I come to think of it, I am amazed that we have not debated it many months, or even years, before now. This is a useful and timely debate.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) all made significant points.
I can summarise the consistent theme that has run through the debate in five points. First, a range of questions clearly remains unanswered. There is no doubt that there are issues that have not been resolved concerning the holding of referendums. Secondly, it is abundantly clear—for this we also have to thank hon. Members from other parties—that there needs to be cross-party agreement on a framework; the issue should be raised above party politics.
Thirdly, there needs to be an independent commission to conduct referendums. As several of my hon. Friends said, it is implausible that a fair referendum—or at least one that would be seen to be fair—can be conducted at


the behest of a Government who are necessarily a participant in that referendum and in the arguments within it.
Fourthly, there needs to be a set of rules governing access to the media, as there is for general elections, although the rules will have to be different, because equal access to the media needs to be provided for the yes and the no campaigns—which may be a quite different proposition from equal access for political parties. For example, all political parties could be on one side in a referendum, but the other side should be equally represented in the media. Finally, there needs to be a settled decision—the will of the British people—about what should constitute a fair threshold for a result.
None of that is new; the issue has been studied by a group of people, under the aegis of the constitution unit of University College London and the Electoral Reform Society—not, as the Home Secretary's phrase, a relatively independent group, but a genuinely independent group. It is chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne and includes Dr. David Butler, representatives of all the political parties, and a number of distinguished academics.
That group sat for some months and considered the issue in great detail. Its findings have been much spoken of in the other place. It recommended, among other things:

It is essential that referendums should be conducted in a manner which enables all competing views to be heard…special guidance should be drawn up…An independent statutory Commission should be established…A balance should be maintained between the 'Yes' and 'No' viewpoints rather than between the different political parties…Every household should receive a publicly funded leaflet giving general information on the holding of the referendum and statements of the 'Yes' and 'No' cases".
If an independent commission has reached such a conclusion, if there is broad cross-party agreement that such rules are necessary, and if—as the Home Secretary graciously came close to telling the House yesterday—the Government impose an orderly procedure on the referendum on proportional representation, we have every reason to hope that, in just a few minutes, the Minister will tell us that the Government have at last concluded that it is necessary to impose such order on referendums generally.
I want to take the debate one step further and ask a question that has not been sufficiently explored—why is all this so important now? Why was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire right to raise the matter today? One point that has been raised, by implication, in the debate is the dizzy speed of constitutional change under this Government. Indeed, constitutionally they are the most radical Government since 1688—

Mr. Home Robertson: Thank God for that.

Mr. Letwin: I would not echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. I regret almost every aspect of the Government's agenda for constitutional change. However, that is not the burden of my argument today. Whether one welcomes it or disdains it; whether one regards it as unsettling to the whole nature of our constitution and our democracy or the best thing since sliced bread is neither here nor there. It has happened and is continuing to happen at a dizzying pace. It is happening by means of something which is itself a constitutional innovation,

on which we do not yet have a settled view or settled rules. We cannot be confident that fair play will be involved—a necessary tool of any referendum. It behoves the Government, much more than their predecessors, seriously to take this question in hand and do something about the structuring of referendums.
There is a second point, of equal importance. The most important referendum that will be held—perhaps not in this Parliament, but shortly thereafter if the Government have their way—is that on a European currency. Many of us see that as a Rubicon. In that referendum, if none of the action recommended by the independent commission and many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members is taken, there will be a severe danger that that critical referendum will not be, and will not be seen to be, fair.
In that case, there will be an awesome power of money behind one position. There is a great danger that a Government allied with the European Commission would use taxpayers' funds and a set of rules that did not have cross-party support or national acceptance to distort the likely result. Whether we fall on one side or the other of the argument in that referendum, it is of the greatest importance to all in this country that the result is seen to be fair and to have been fairly obtained.
There is a further point. It is not simply a matter of the European referendum; we were told yesterday that there is likely to be a referendum on proportional representation. In respect of the conduct of this House and the British constitution, that referendum will probably be, in its long-term effects, the biggest issue to be faced in this Parliament. The Home Secretary gave us at least a hint that the Government might impose rules that would establish fairness in the conduct of that referendum. However, that is not enough.
The Government want to seek parliamentary approval—unfortunately, they are likely to obtain it—to constrain the way in which political parties are funded at general elections. We understand that the Government will try to establish a position in which internal political debate, when it is conducted outside the context of a referendum, will be constrained by the amount of money that can be spent by either side. Yet within the referendum itself, there will be no rules to preclude the Government spending not politically raised money, but taxpayers' money, on trying to persuade the public to take one view rather than another.
It is therefore wholly possible under the current regime—although the Home Secretary has assured us that he does not want this—for the Government to issue large-scale information on one side of the issue, in reality propaganda posing as information, in a referendum on proportional representation. If the Government were to act in that way, they would be undercutting the rules on political funding, using taxpayers' money to distort a constitutional outcome. That would seriously undermine the structure of our democracy and people's faith in it.
The Government must translate the Home Secretary's hints of yesterday into the reality of guidelines and an independent commission that would make it clear that taxpayers' money will not be used to distort the critical outcome of a referendum on proportional representation or any other referendum, whether European or domestic. If the House takes heed of that, and if the Minister conveys that to the Home Secretary so that the Government can take heed of it, my hon. Friend the


Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will live in history as having contributed, through a debate that has hardly been attended by Labour Members, to a major constitutional improvement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on securing the debate and on having, for the most part, presented his arguments thoughtfully and interestingly. I also commend him on his timing, as it is less than two weeks since the fourth referendum of this Parliament was held. Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom has recent experience of a referendum, and this is a good time to reflect on that experience.
Most of the points made in debate were thoughtful, and I shall shortly say a little about the general principles raised. I should cover two points immediately, however, because they do not fall under general headings. First, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked, under the heading of reversibility, how long referendum results will last and when questions can be reconsidered. It is open to Parliament to reopen any issue on which it has already legislated, whether or not it has been subject to a referendum.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended if I say that I am confident that the referendums we have had have been popular and reasonably successful. I do not think that there will be any immediate demand from the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland—possibly even the people of Wales—to revisit those issues. However, if there is at any time such popular demand, the House will debate the matters, and further action will flow from that. The option is always open.
The second point, raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), was the question of thresholds. Different circumstances require different rules, and it is not possible to generalise. In some cases, a threshold may be appropriate, but in others it will not. Even where it might be appropriate, different levels might apply in different cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said.
It was not appropriate to set a threshold in any of the referendums that we held over the past year.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not intend to give way often, as I have very little time.

Mr. Salmond: I certainly agree that there should have been no thresholds in the referendums that we have had. However, the Minister seemed to suggest that there might be some reasons for having a threshold. I plead with him not to do that. Thresholds have caused any amount of trouble in Scotland, and if a threshold had been imposed on the London referendum, it would, by any description, have been considered a failure. I want a principled statement from the Government that they will not indulge in any fancy franchise at any referendum.

Mr. Howarth: My point was that I do not want to prescribe the position for every set of circumstances.

So far, we have seen no case for a threshold. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke very clearly on the general principle of thresholds, but I would not want to rule them out in every case, because we cannot see what will happen in future.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I ask him to appreciate that my time is very limited.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, but this is a very important point. This is a minefield. A 40 per cent. threshold was imposed in the referendum held in Scotland in 1979, and, although there was a clear yes vote, that artificial rule meant that the decision of the people of Scotland was thrown out. We had to wait nearly 20 years before we got our Parliament. That sort of fancy franchise cannot be tolerated anywhere.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is why it was not considered right to set a threshold in the Scottish referendum this time. That supports the point I am making about what is or is not appropriate.
Referendums are not a new device. Indeed, their use can be traced back to Roman times, and we have had an interesting diversion on the origin of the word itself. In the last century and until quite recently, there were temperance ballots in Wales. I believe that the last dry area went wet last year; if I am mistaken on that, no doubt someone will write to me. A so-called border poll in Northern Ireland 25 years ago under a Conservative Government produced a yes vote of 98.5 per cent., but its usefulness was undermined by the fact that it was boycotted by the nationalist community. The very high turnouts in the north and in the south of Ireland in the referendums on 22 May show the progress we have made since then.
In 1975 we had the United Kingdom's first, and so far only, national referendum, when there was a two-to-one vote to stay in the Common Market, as it was then called. That was followed by the first Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums. The recent referendums in those two countries make it possible to measure how far public opinion has moved. In 1979, the people of Wales voted four-to-one against devolution, but by 1997, a majority—albeit not a large one—of those who voted were in favour of the Government's devolution proposals. On the present crop of referendums, we made a clear manifesto commitment that our devolution proposals would be subject to referendums, and they were.
I was remiss earlier in not congratulating the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his first outing at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that there will be many more. His speech was very clear and, though partisan, thoughtful. I have no doubt we will hear much more from him.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) and others raised the question of the single currency referendum. We are committed to a referendum on that. What characterises these subjects is that they involve a transfer of power away from central government, and bringing decisions closer to the people.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a key point about the conduct of referendums. Overall, the experience of the recent referendums has been very


positive and it is a considerable tribute to those responsible for the conduct of elections that everything went so smoothly and efficiently, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland went ahead with relatively little notice, and the poll in London was combined with local elections. I certainly pay tribute to the electoral administrators involved.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there would be merit in establishing a permanent referendum commission to oversee the operation of regional and national referendums. I am not wholly persuaded of the merits of that suggestion. It was considered by the Electoral Reform Society and UCL constitution unit. In the recent referendums, we considered it right that Parliament should determine the wording of any question in a referendum being conducted by central Government. The number of amendments tabled to subsequent Bills bore out our contention that that was the right way to act. The polling and counting arrangements were not subject to any criticism as far as I am aware.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, unless I am mistaken, that public money was spent to fund the yes campaigns in Scotland and Wales. I flatly refute that allegation: no public money was spent on those campaigns. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will check the facts and retract that statement.

Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No I shall not give way—it is very late.
The position is clear: there will be occasions when referendums are appropriate, and occasions when they are not. They cannot create unity where no unity exists, and they cannot change the fact that Parliament is a sovereign body. However, they provide a unique way of consulting the people on specific issues, particularly on policies that are important in particular countries or parts of the country. That is why the Government committed themselves to holding a number of referendums. The electorate endorsed that principle and elected this Government, and we have carried out those promises.
We have had a useful debate, but we should be clear that referendums have a place and will not always be used in every circumstance. They will be used where appropriate.

Turnberg Health Proposals

Mr. Tony Colman: The Labour party welcomed the Turnberg proposals in February this year. As I could not ask questions of the Secretary of State following his statement in the House, I will concentrate the bulk of my comments on the effects of the proposals on my constituency. Some of my hon. Friends have said that they will touch on the report's wider implications and what has happened since February. The report was widely welcomed, not least in Putney, whose residents suffered years of cuts in services and uncertainty, particularly in the provision of hospital services.
May I make a declaration of interest? Since 1966, my family and I have been treated at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, my local hospital. I have fought for its retention almost all my adult life. My predecessor also fought for it, but in the last two years of the Tory Government, Queen Mary's suffered severe cuts. Under the Tories, and before I became the Member for Putney, the hospital lost acute surgery, paediatrics, orthopaedics, maternity services—my sons were among the last to be born there—gynaecology and obstetrics. Also before the last election, the accident and emergency department was downgraded. Those cuts totally undermined the viability of the burns and plastics unit remaining on site.
I state those facts because the local Conservatives have been reinventing history in the recent local elections. It is worth reminding the House that those cuts in services were not opposed by my predecessor or by the local Conservative council at the time. It is only since the general election that the Conservatives have done a U-turn, conveniently forgetting that they made the cuts themselves. The cuts were not opposed by the Conservative nominees on the community health council, with the honourable exception of the late councillor, Duncan Hawkins.
The doctors and nurses at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton have coped brilliantly and have performed miracles over the past year to cope with those Tory cuts. The Turnberg report gave a vision for a new, secure Queen Mary's hospital—a secure community hospital for the 21st century. I shall devote the remainder of my speech to the future of Queen Mary's and how it has fulfilled that vision in implementing the Turnberg proposals.
More than 90 per cent. of the services previously provided on the site will continue into the next millennium. The transfer of the remaining acute services to neighbouring hospitals is proceeding to plan and the new wards at Kingston hospital will be available in August. However, the out-patient services, which form the vast bulk of the services available to my constituents, will be immeasurably strengthened and improved by a new, integrated care centre offering rapid diagnosis and treatment, out-patient and clinic services in ENT, gastroenterology, elderly care, dermatology, gynaecology—including ante-natal, post-natal and assisted conception—neurology, oral and orthodontics, ophthalmology, orthopaedic and fractures, paediatrics, pain control, plastics, rheumatology, urology and HIV-AIDS, haematology, and a beta-cell diabetes service.
Some 200 in-patient beds will cover rehabilitation and respite care, mental health and elderly continuing care. Day units will continue, including the Bryceson-White


unit for elderly people, the mental health resource centre and the Bader rehabilitation unit. The nationally renowned skin bank will remain.
I could go on with a laundry list of all the services available at the new Queen Mary's, but suffice it to say that it is a substantial hospital. I thank the Minister for his rapid and positive response to the referral of the proposals from Wandsworth community health council this year. I am grateful for his support for the rapid diagnostic centre, the minor injuries unit, the day surgery up to level 9 under local anaesthetic, and primarily for his support for the financing of brand new hospital buildings through the private finance initiative under a successful business case. A project manager has been appointed; the business case is being worked on and should go to the Minister this autumn. We all hope that building will commence within the next three years. In the meantime, the hospital will continue to use the existing buildings that have served the area well for so long.
The number of acute beds moving from Queen Mary' s is 172 but, as I said, more than 200 non-acute beds will remain; 137 replacement beds will open at Kingston, 34 will open at St. George's, 12 will open at Chelsea and Westminster, and two will open at West Middlesex. Those new beds reflect the range of choices that the people of Putney should have. I obtained those figures before yesterday afternoon's announcement of additional beds for London.
The movement of the burns and plastics unit will be accompanied by an identical number of beds in its new location. The new wards that will be available at Kingston in the autumn are of the portakabin type, and it is important that capital is made available for permanent buildings at Kingston and elsewhere. It is also important that the once-an-hour bus service between the two hospitals becomes a half-hourly service. Kingston out-patient services are becoming overcrowded. With shorter waiting lists at Queen Mary's hospital, local health care experts should perhaps look at transferring all out-patients to Queen Mary's hospital from Kingston, thereby releasing space for the required permanent acute care facilities at Kingston.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have one thing in common: both our sons were born in Queen Mary's hospital. However, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying to convey to the House. He has listed new services and said that many of the services have been moved to other hospitals around Putney. Is that not precisely what is necessary to give rationality to our health service? The hon. Gentleman complained about Tory cuts at Roehampton, but have any of those services been restored on-site? If not, is he not saying that the Labour Government are continuing the previous Government' s policies of rationalising the NHS?

Mr. Colman: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, once services are moved off-site, doctors, nurses and facilities are also moved. That has happened. If he suggests that the Tory cuts can easily be reversed, he should go to his local hospital and ask how transferred services can be brought back.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman asks me to understand that point; it is a pity that some of his hon.

Friends did not make that point when Edgware hospital was closed. They gave the impression that the accident and emergency department at Edgware could be reopened.

Mr. Colman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) will make his point adequately if he is able to attend this debate. I must make it clear that what happened at Edgware and Queen Mary's happened under the Tory Government, and they were responsible for those changes.
The transfer of acute beds from Queen Mary's to Kingston created a balance, but it is important that, as soon as practicable after the transfer of those acute beds, the transfer of beds from Putney hospital should take place. There must not be a gap when Queen Mary's hospital is not used to its full capacity. Following that transfer, I look forward to new health care facilities in a public-private partnership with the local council, housing associations and the private sector, ensuring that Putney hospital continues to be a health care facility for the people of Putney. I further endorse the use of accommodation at Putney hospital by students of the Roehampton institute, a university that has a number of proposals on how it can work in partnership with the hospital across the road.
There is an urgent need to train general practitioners and hospital staff in management issues, particularly in the development of primary care groups and trusts. That could dovetail well with the Roehampton institute's plans for the expansion of health care subjects.
As I said, Queen Mary's continues to have the world famous Bader rehabilitation unit for amputees, with associated prosthetics and orthotics manufacturing workshops, and wheelchair manufacture and service. The workshops have been provided by two private companies—RSL and Steepers—which, in the past few days, have merged. I am pleased to tell the House that I have received assurances from Stephen Horam, the finance director of RSL, that there will be no reduction of the continued operational work force of more than 500, and Roehampton will continue, through the public-private partnership of the NHS and those companies, as a world centre for prosthetics and orthotics.
I welcome the White Paper on the future of the health service, particularly because of the way in which it backs up the principles outlined in the Turnberg report. I especially welcome the encouragement of trust mergers, and I look forward to a reconfiguration of trusts in south-west London, potentially based on the Queen Mary's site. A dialogue has now opened in south-west London between trusts, health authorities, GPs, local authorities and local communities. That dialogue must continue and seek ways in which to achieve a more holistic approach to community services in particular. With the development of larger hospital trusts, there must follow the development of a larger critical mass for community services, to provide an appropriate balance.
The next five years should bring much larger trusts, in terms of geography and service provision. Their roles will include co-ordinating and providing health promotion services, professional development of nurses and other clinical staff, provision of specialist managerial advice and support and, of course, the efficient running of comprehensive primary and community health services.
Queen Mary's and other hospitals like it in London have a key role to play in providing a more local and accessible service for their communities, while seeking


ways in which to achieve greater flexibility in developing partnerships in care, and shaping local health services to meet the future needs of local people.
On a contentious note, as a former local authority leader, I feel that health authorities should be replaced by joint commissioning by primary care groups and local councils. The Berlin wall could then finally be removed from health care. Local health authorities, forced as they were under the Tories continually to cut back services, often did so in ways unacceptable to local residents—as is the case with Queen Mary's, as fully described in the Turnberg report. It is important to realise that local councils have been managing care in the community for the past six years with considerable success, and with at least 85 per cent. of services purchased from the not-for-profit or profit sectors. That has worked. Local councils should replace local health authorities in London.
I also welcome a single London-wide health authority, as recommended by the Turnberg report, but I hope that on the back of successful trials of local council purchasing of health care, the Greater London authority could take over that London-wide role. I realise that that may take time.
In the meantime, I pay tribute to the work of Sir William Wells, chairman of the South Thames regional health authority until its demise next year. He has done a huge amount in the past five months to ensure that the Turnberg proposals have been put into action in the South Thames region. I wish him well in his new role outside London.
Queen Mary's hospital has been through a difficult period over the past three years, but the time since February has been managed well. The new chief executive, Veronica Cotterill, has led her staff well into a secure future. I pay tribute to Dr. Elizabeth Nelson, the new chair of the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton trust, who has done so much to lead from the front and who has plans way beyond those that I have mentioned today. Finally, I pay particular tribute to Mrs. Alex Elliott, chair of the Queen Mary's League of Friends, who is sitting in the Gallery. She represents the most important people—the Queen Mary's community. She spoke last Sunday about an exciting new future for Queen Mary's and the friends' plans to support it. She has been brilliant.
After Turnberg, Queen Mary's has a different future. In the 50th year of the NHS, Queen Mary's future has been not only secured, but strengthened as a model of how the national health service can adapt itself to reflect new patterns of health care, while serving local residents in the most appropriate way for the 21st century.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for securing this debate, which is the first since the Government's announcement on the Turnberg proposals four months ago. On 3 February, I generally welcomed the report. It was also widely welcomed in the House and outside, as the hon. Gentleman said. It set out many good paths for the health service in London, and we can see that progress has been made.
First, I congratulate the Government on acting speedily on one of the recommendations, by accepting the logical proposal that London should have one strategic health

authority. Many of us have argued that case for many years, and the Government have announced that it will be set up next year. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome that, but, as the Minister knows, I also believe that we should go further and make the Greater London authority, when it is set up, the strategic health authority for London. In all logic, that should be the case. I know that there are implications concerning what should be done in the rest of country, and that different management structures would be in place, but it would be far better if strategic planning were done by elected people rather than by people whom nobody knows or chooses.
Chapter 4 of the Turnberg report examined locality commissioning, and work is being done on that. I hope that the Minister will accept that there will be a problem if there is not a common set of boundaries with local government. There is a desire to have such common boundaries, within which locality groups fit, and for health authority and local authority boundaries gradually coming together. That would be common sense. However, there is a democratic deficit, and some people have a problem with the idea that developments in primary care will be led by practitioners, rather than by the public, who would make sure that practitioners did what the patients wanted.
The Secretary of State and I had an exchange yesterday on public involvement in health services. He was wrong to say that no party has ever proposed that there should be democratic management of the health service. My party believes that health and social services should be merged under local government control, and that the local authority should therefore also be the health commissioning body. The Government have not come that far, but they are moving in that direction.
The hon. Member for Putney rightly said that the Berlin wall in health care must be broken down. I ask the House and Ministers to accept that there will come a time when we merge health and social services commissioning, as in Northern Ireland. Those services deal with the same people at different stages in their treatment and need, and the illogicality of one service being a local government social services function and another being a separate health authority function does not work for the patient or the practitioner.
I hope that the Government will also seriously consider making more democratic the representation on trusts and health authorities, as well as evaluating the idea of health commissioning eventually being merged with local government. The Government are committed to reforming local government structures; let us not ignore health structures.
The Minister is well aware of the problems in primary care alluded to by Turnberg. In London, we face a severe prospective crisis in the number of doctors and GPs and, in some areas, of nurses and other practitioners. That is very worrying. Some areas of London have staff shortages of up to 20 per cent. By the end of the next five or 10 years, the health service must deal with these problems, particularly in the capital, where pressures are greater and travelling and housing are more expensive.
Ministers probably say privately to their colleagues over the road that they do not want Chancellors, including the present one, to insist on pay awards being staggered, as was done this year. Pay awards should not have been staggered this year. It has not helped; nurses were furious


and other workers were unhappy. If the economy allows it, as it currently does, pay awards should be made in full to encourage people to come into nursing and the other professions in public services, such as medicine and therapies. I hope that the Minister will tell us—if not today, then soon—how he plans to deal with recruitment needs in London. If we do not meet those needs, we shall be unable to implement all the proposals made by Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues.
On intermediate care, the health service is at an interesting stage. We now realize—as do the Government, and I commend them for it—that the community does not need only intensive care beds, high dependency beds or long-term beds, for respite care or convalescence, or to reduce blocking hospital beds. It needs a network of community hospitals in London, which we used to have. I do not blame this Government for closing them down. I should be interested to hear how the Government plan to respond to that need and open them up.
All areas of London should have a community hospital. To take a local example, I know that, when people, particularly the elderly, from the north of Southwark no longer need acute care, or need other care, they often cannot find it locally. They are cared for at home, if that is possible, or sent a long way from their community, where their partners, spouses, families and friends cannot easily visit if there is no public transport or they have no private transport. I hope that the need for a second tier of in-patient care in London, with and without nursing help, will be addressed.
Sir Leslie's report rightly concentrates on the needs of mental health care in London. Ministers understand the pressure, but the long-awaited paper on mental health has still not been published. It has been much delayed, and we keep being told that it is imminent. The Minister may make an announcement on that. The Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for mental health matters, has promised to announce the Government's policy in this area.
My plea to the Government is that they ensure soon that London has the 24-hour services that Sir Leslie and his colleagues recommend. People's crisis needs can be greatly alleviated if there is somewhere they can go at any time. Mental health provision for people who are not in-patients is extremely under-resourced.
Some welcome announcements have been made about bed closures. Will the increase in the number of establishment beds in London be permanent? Yesterday's announcement referred to the new beds as beds to deal with the waiting list and waiting times problem. I welcome that, but will they be available next year and the year after? Turnberg said—thank goodness—that we could no longer afford any further closures of hospital beds in London. The NHS Confederation says that, between 1990 and 1996, the number of acute in-patient beds fell by 2,761, which is a hell of a lot of beds. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether it is Government policy to have a particular number of beds and what that number is, and whether the new beds will be included in future projections.
The report considers that the sensible way in which to deal with the planned five parts of London is a separation of acute and elective care to ensure, among other things, that people's planned operations are not cancelled. If that

can be achieved—it is the logic of the Bart's decision—it will be welcome. The two services should not be muddled.
The Minister would be surprised if I did not say something about the largest hospital trust in the country, Guy's and St. Thomas's. On or near his desk is a set of papers awaiting his decision about the final configuration of services. We must all try to ensure that no health service money is wasted. The Minister knows that, if we do what the trust proposes and move the paediatric department from Guy's to St. Thomas's, a new building will have to be built at a cost of about £50 million, and seven floors of a relatively new building at Guy's will be left clinically empty. The plan is to use them for administration, which is nonsense.
People in charge of the cardiac centre have told me that, at the same time, they do not have enough money to do their job properly. We must ensure that the money is used where the need is, which, I would argue, would require paediatric services to stay at Guy's without huge additional expenditure, and the cardiac centre to have the money it needs, rather than buildings to be built that are not needed.
I hope that the Minister will make people happy, will make the health service more effective and will use money more wisely by making the popular decision that Guy's shall have 400 to 500 beds and the elective care, while acute care is concentrated be on the St. Thomas's site.
The hon. Member for Putney was trying to ensure that Labour was not blamed for Tory decisions. In my part of London, we still believe that Labour should take its responsibility because it endorsed the Tory proposal to close accident and emergency services at Guy's. The Government cannot get out of their responsibility. That may not apply in the hon. Gentleman's part of London, but it was as much a Labour as a Tory decision to close our accident and emergency services. It was certainly not the platform on which the Labour party campaigned against me at the general election. People were told that Guy's would be saved on day one of a Labour Government. If that did not include saving the accident and emergency services, I do not know what they thought people believed they meant.
Yesterday, the Chancellor said that he would continue to be an iron Chancellor. The health service requires a Chancellor who understands its resource needs. Sir Leslie has said that the health service in London needs the resources to do the jobs that we all want it to do. Health ministers will make their case, but the proof of the effectiveness of the Government's health service pudding will be whether the Chancellor next month announces significant increases in resources for the health service in London and elsewhere. Without them, much of what is in this excellent report will not come to pass.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. I should like to confine my remarks to two aspects of the report: chapter 11 on Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals, and chapter 6 on primary care.
Harold Wood hospital is in my constituency, and Oldchurch hospital is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon). Both hospitals come under the Barking and Havering


health authority and are in the London borough of Havering. The Turnberg report made a firm recommendation. On page 71, it states:
We endorse the single site Oldchurch area proposal as optimal on the grounds of access to a large proportion of the most deprived population and the strong support from the local authorities and GPs.
Those words, brief as they are, have been taken wrongly by some, including the BBC, to mean the closure of Harold Wood hospital, but that is not the case. I have had numerous discussions with the executives of the Havering hospitals trust, the BHB trust, the area health authority and the regional health authority about the implementation and recommendations of the report and its knock-on effect on Harold Wood hospital. It will undoubtedly mean different health services at Harold Wood, but it does not mean closure.
I could go on at length about the services that are planned and will be delivered in the future at Harold Wood, but that can wait for a more appropriate time, especially in view of the imminent launch of the local consultation process on the future of hospital services in the area. The indications are that positive proposals will be forthcoming, which will be welcomed by my constituents.

Ms Linda Perham: As my hon. Friend knows, Members from north-east London have worked well on local hospital issues, but the report acknowledged that its recommendation for Oldchurch will have an impact on King George's hospital in Ilford, which most of my constituents use. Will he join me in urging the Minister to consider the impact on my local services and on services in the whole of the north-east London area?

Mr. Darvill: I am pleased to urge the Minister to consider the impact on hospitals in the surrounding areas.
Health care services will be fit for the new millennium under the proposed package of measures. It will ensure the maximum use of facilities developed through limited investment over the past 10 years. Despite the scare stories that have emanated from some quarters—mainly from our political opponents in the lead-up to the local elections—my main concern is about the time it will take to implement the report's recommendations. The proposals referred to in the report have been developed locally. They are exciting and will provide a new general hospital at Oldchurch close to the existing hospital and just four miles from Harold Wood. The new hospital will be built on land currently owned by the London borough of Havering, which will be exchanged for area health authority land.
After the new hospital has been built and services have decamped from the old hospital to the new, the old hospital will be demolished, leaving Havering council free to build its long-awaited sports stadium. A new hospital close to a public sports facility would enable the link between healthy living and sports injuries facilities to become more than a vision; it would become a reality. Such public facilities, developed in partnership across agencies, would be welcome.
I am concerned about procrastination and about delay which, unfortunately, has been the hallmark of past Administrations. There has been some investment, but it has been piecemeal, and there does not appear to have

been a coherent strategy, which has understandably led to public scepticism and frustration. Procrastination and delay in implementing necessary changes have left health services deteriorating, which has affected the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Dagenham (Ms Church) especially harshly. I fear that further years of delay will fail the populations further, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that this recommendation is high on the list of priorities.
There is a popular misunderstanding about outer east London, which is considered to be a leafy suburb without deprivation. That is not the case, and the area is often overlooked because of that misconception. Recent reports commissioned by the area health authority and the local authorities contain ample evidence of serious health needs that must be addressed.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and for Dagenham need and deserve the new facility, which will provide improved services closer to the centre of population that it would serve. Further delay would do our constituents a disservice; a quick advance would enable the partnership that has developed between the area health authorities, the hospital trusts, the London boroughs, the community health council and Members of Parliament to flourish, in marked and notable contrast to years gone by.
Lack of investment and failure to recognise the area's health needs, especially the almost crisis position of primary care, are evidenced by the Turnberg report, which states on page 33:
Despite considerable investment in primary care services in the last few years, services lag woefully behind those in the remainder of the country. The number of practices below recommended standards remains high, too many premises remain poor, single handed practices represent a larger proportion than elsewhere, recruitment is difficult and the total number of GPs has fallen slightly in the face of a rise across England.
The table on page 36 shows the acuteness of the problem in east London: only 8 per cent. of premises in the Barking and Havering health authority area are above the minimum standard, and across east London generally, only 20 per cent. are above the minimum standard.
There is a considerable shortage of GPs: the area health authority is 50 short, which has a knock-on effect. GPs who practise in the area have to work under difficult circumstances with long patient lists, crowded surgeries and heavy demands. That has a contributory effect on the average demand on accident and emergency access services.
For those reasons, I welcome the report's recommendations in chapter 6, paragraph 23, especially paragraph 23.6, which states:
London's health authorities should be required to ensure that the proportion of practice premises which are below minimum standards should be reduced from the current 50 per cent. by 10 per cent. annually. Funding for cash-limited GP premises nationally should be related to the proportion of practice premises which are below the minimum standards. The Regional Offices should ensure that there is co-ordinated advice and support for general practitioners on all aspects of premises provision for London.
In view of that, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the timetable for the implementation of those recommendations, for only when they are implemented will we, as politicians who have been elected to improve the health service, have honoured our pledges.
I welcome the debate and the report, which was ordered speedily after the general election and delivered promptly by the independent panel. Its recommendations have been


widely welcomed, and we have to implement them with urgency of purpose, so that the people of London have their health services improved and restored.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Turnberg report and to make observations on the future of the health service in London, especially hospital services.
I represent a constituency on the edge of Greater London. Mount Vernon hospital, about which I initiated an Adjournment debate on Friday 6 March, is located there. Earlier this year, the Minister of State, Department of Health was good enough to receive a deputation which I took to the Department to discuss its future. On Friday 29 May, Hillingdon health authority produced a consultation document, "A Contract With Local People", which makes drastic recommendations about Mount Vernon hospital and other hospital services, especially Hillingdon hospital in the north of Hillingdon borough.
I fear that the Turnberg report and the Government's plans for the future of the health service in London do not take sufficient note of hospitals such as Mount Vernon, which, historically, have drawn patients from well beyond the Greater London area. I must repeat what I said on 6 March: Mount Vernon is the largest cancer centre in the south-east on a single site. More important, it is probably the premier cancer treatment location in the south of England, if not the country, and combines fantastic clinical facilities for the treatment of cancer with research facilities of international repute, especially the Gray laboratory and the Marie Curie centre.
Furthermore, there is an outstanding hospice, Michael Sobel house, and a scanner centre, the Paul Strickland centre, which have been built up largely by private contributions from generous people over many years. Another charity, the Reconstruction of Appearance and Function Trust, is at Mount Vernon, as is the Cleft Lip and Palate Association. Mount Vernon is a genuine centre of outstanding excellence, but such a cancer centre cannot stand on its own: it has to have a range of supportive services in general medicine, surgery and many other disciplines. They are being put at risk by wide-ranging reviews undertaken for reasons of supposed rationalisation and supposed better organisation of services in the area; but the conclusions are highly questionable and would be prejudicial to the long-term future of the hospital. Indeed, they would call into question its viability beyond the next 10 years or so.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the hon. Member for Putney suggested that the health service in London would be better administered by the Greater London authority than by the single health authority for the capital proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I do not understand how the Greater London authority could have the range of competence and the professional expertise to run London's health service. How it would administer the budget is unclear to me.
The suggestion of the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Putney is contrary to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the future governance of London. The proposals are directed at the strategic development of the capital in terms of industry

and commerce, transport, strategic planning and so on. They have nothing to do with the health service, and it would be a retrograde step if Her Majesty's Government took their advice. It would not, as they somewhat disingenuously suppose, constitute an advance towards democratic control of the health service.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "retrograde step". Does he accept, with the benefit of hindsight, that his failure to oppose the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Mount Vernon hospital when his party was in government was a retrograde step, and will he take this opportunity to apologise to his constituents—and, indeed, mine—for his failure in that regard?

Mr. Wilkinson: I have no reason to apologise. I initiated an Adjournment debate calling for the accident and emergency unit to be kept open at night when there were plans to close it at night. The then Minister—now my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—acceded to my request, and the unit was kept open at night for a while; but the health professionals believed that its closure would constitute a better use of resources. They felt that it would be better to concentrate on A and E services at what they considered to be better-equipped hospitals, such as Watford general, Northwick Park and Hillingdon. Hon. Members are extremely rash if they arrogate to themselves a professional competence in matters of health service clinical judgment which are rightly in the domain of health service professionals.
I was not happy with the proposal. It went against the grain. Local people, however, were informed that the unit had to close; they were told that the cancer treatment service would be built up, and that that would become the hospital's specialist role—which indeed it has, to the credit of all concerned. I am arguing that organisational changes in the health service in London are putting at risk even the long-term future of the cancer centre.
The proposed changes are fundamental. Paragraph 4.34 of the consultation document proposes that
from April 1999 inpatient services for acute medicine and care of the elderly, including those provided in the medical assessment and coronary care units, be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital".
That is to happen at the beginning of the next financial year. The document continues:
inpatient services for non-acute medicine and care of the elderly, together with medical day care, medical outpatient services and the minor injuries service remain on the Mount Vernon Hospital site".
However, the next paragraph states:
from April 2001 the above inpatient services of non-acute medicine and care of the elderly, medical outpatients and minor injuries, plus other services, e. g. children's services, should transfer into the community hospital in the north of the borough".
In other words, there is a stay of execution. In the early part of the next century, Mount Vernon will be deprived of much of its bread-and-butter work.
Paragraph 4.37 states:
Medical staff would work together as a joint team covering both The Hillingdon and Mount Vernon hospitals, providing acute inpatient care at The Hillingdon Hospital and outpatient and day hospital services across the borough.
That is all very well, and a reasonable person would commend such proposals to make better use of skilled personnel; but, at the same time, it is proposed that


Mount Vernon hospital—which currently forms a joint trust with Watford general—should merge with Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans NHS hospital trusts in Hertfordshire. That will complicate the cross-London boundary dimension of the health service still further.
The North Thames regional executive dealt with both the home counties north of London and London north of the Thames. That allowed co-ordination, which was thoroughly healthy—especially for hospitals such as Mount Vernon, which took patients from north of Greater London. How things will work under the new regional authorities has yet to be defined: I hope that the Minister will be able to explain.
I am particularly perturbed about the future of the burns and plastic surgery units on the Mount Vernon site. Those specialties are crucial to the underpinning of the cancer centre. The possibilities under consideration appear to be the resiting of the entire unit at Northwick Park hospital in Harrow, the resiting of the plastic surgery centre at Northwick Park—with the burns element going to Chelsea and Westminster hospital—and division of the work between Northwick Park and Chelsea and Westminster, with the burns element going to Chelsea and Westminster. I do not comprehend why those changes are proposed; I do not see how they will help to ensure the long-term future of Mount Vernon as a cancer centre.
The same applies to Hillingdon health authority's further proposals. According to paragraph 4.54 of last Friday's consultation document,
from April 1999 complex elective inpatient surgery, especially vascular surgery, should be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital. From April 2001 all elective inpatient surgery should be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital. Day case surgery for selected patients, together with surgical outpatient services, should remain at Mount Vernon Hospital until such time as a community hospital is developed in the north of the borough.
Again, there is only a stay of execution.
All in all, it would seem that the powers that be have it in for Mount Vernon hospital—God alone knows why. Mount Vernon is an outstanding institution. Most people who have been treated there, have visited the hospital or have the privilege of working there describe it as a centre of excellence. This death by a thousand cuts would be a tragedy.
I am convinced that my constituents, and those who benefit from the hospital's services, will fight for its future. They believe that it ought to be built up rather than run down, and that the fact that Her Majesty's Government—who have made such play of their commitment to the NHS, during their election campaign and since—should contemplate damaging a premier cancer centre beggars belief. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.

Mr. Roger Casale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on obtaining the debate. I know how hard he has worked to secure the future of Queen Mary's hospital, both before and since his election. I, too, campaigned, in my neighbouring constituency, to keep Queen Mary's accident and emergency unit open. We did not claim that

it would automatically be restored if we were elected, but I venture to suggest that had my hon. Friend been the Member for Putney since 1992 rather than 1997, the situation at Queen Mary's might be very different.
The Tory Government left the new Labour Government an appalling legacy of underfunding and huge regional disparities in health care. However, we also have another inheritance: the Labour party set up the NHS, and initiated the principles and philosophy behind it, along with the commitment to rebuild it. If there was one reason why support for Labour was so strong in my constituency last May, it was the belief that Labour would rebuild the NHS.
Underfunding in London, including my area of south-west London, is a particular problem, as the Turnberg report makes clear. Some time ago, my health authority, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth, produced a report called "The River Runs Dry". According to the health authority, that phrase
most accurately describes our financial position…We do not believe that it will be possible to achieve an income and expenditure balance
in the next financial year
without major reductions in staff and other costs of our providers.
Since the publication of that report, the Government have made additional resources available, and detailed negotiations to secure a bridging loan have taken place with the NHS regional executive.
I do not share the rosy view of the South Thames regional executive that is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. I hope that proper funding arrangements for the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority can be secured. Difficult and acrimonious negotiations have been taking place. A local GP told me, "The deficit is being passed from the trusts to the health authority and back again. Nobody wants to be left with the deficit when the music stops."
If the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth authority cannot get a bridging loan to cover the non-recurring part of its deficit, the consequences for my constituents will be severe. They will look to the Government, in responding to the Turnberg report, to address the specific problem of resource allocation in London. The NHS needs more resources nationally and more must flow to where they are needed most.
My constituents welcome, as does Turnberg, the Government's commitment to a review of the national distribution of funds for the health service. Page 26 of the Turnberg report suggests that that should be done
through the creation of a working party to review the resource allocation formula and to study the implications of its findings for London.
In the report "The River Runs Dry", Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority states:
We have major concerns about aspects of the capitation formula. We spend the vast majority of our resources on what we would regard as high priority unavoidable need and the allocation that we receive does not appear to adequately reflect the needs of our population.
That assessment is consistent with Turnberg's findings for London as a whole. All is not well with London's health service, and the problems must be sorted out.
Coming to grips with the immensity of London's population and the diversity of health needs and life situations of Londoners will be no easy task. One could do worse than consult the list of special factors that are


part of the everyday reality of health care in south-west London and which are cited in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth report. Do other areas spend the same amount on AIDS and HIV treatment and care, on serious mental illnesses, on people with learning disabilities and on mentally disordered offenders? Do other regions have the same diverse cultural mix, the same mobility and the same age profile of the population as London does? Does the present capitation formula adequately reflect those factors? My interpretation of Turnberg is that it does not.
If those factors had been taken into account in the Government's review of the formula, the health needs of my constituents would have been more truly reflected, the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth deficit would be reduced or eliminated, and local health care resources would be increased.
There are some important proposals in the Turnberg report for cutting the cost of administration by the merger of South Thames and the North Thames regional health executives. In the short term, I am sure that the South Thames executive will ensure that my local authority gets the bridging loan that is needed. In the longer term, we must move away, as my authority wishes to do, from the continuing need for such transitional arrangements by making sure that the formula more truly reflects local health needs. We must also increase the share of national income that is spent on health.

Mr. Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority's major problems is underfunding of the treatment of mentally disordered offenders, and that that underfunding amounts to almost £7 million a year? That dates back to the previous Government because I understand that those costs were moved from the Home Office to the Department of Health, and that the issue has never been properly dealt with. Given the importance of Springfield hospital, which is within the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

Mr. Colman: —that matter should be addressed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I rise the hon. Gentleman should sit down immediately.

Mr. Colman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already made a speech and he is starting to make another one.

Mr. Casale: I understand that the non-recurring deficit is down to about £5 million. The £7 million to which my hon. Friend refers, if properly reflected in the formula, would solve the immediate funding crisis. I have cited some other pressing underfunding issues, but the one to which my hon. Friend refers would in itself deal with the health authority's current problems.
However, it is not just a question of more money for the NHS, although, of course, more for London and especially south-west London is crucial. As the Turnberg report makes clear, we must also involve and consult local people in deciding how that money is spent. As Turnberg puts it, the problem is not whether the public should be involved but how they should be involved.
The report is rightly critical of old-fashioned and out-moded methods such as public meetings, circulars and so on. It criticises the NHS Executive guidance on public consultation, which, as Turnberg says, needs to be urgently reviewed. Some of the suggestions in the report, such as focus groups and citizen juries, will be familiar to students of modern-day consultation techniques, but consulting the public is a difficult and many-sided job. and deciding how best to do it is difficult. I congratulate the local health authority on setting up a series of regular meetings with hon. Members in my area. They have been valuable, and, as Turnberg acknowledges, the community health councils also play an important local role.
Local civic forums and health forums, and consultations with voluntary and community groups also have a role to play, but the overall question of how genuinely to involve the public remains difficult, given the immensity and diversity of London's population. Moreover, a sustained effort is needed if consultation is to be effective.
My community health council and the health authority produce excellent leaflets from time to time, but, after one or two issues, they peter out. When there is a funding crisis, the flow of information dries up because there is no money to pay for consultation materials. Just when maximum consultation is needed, there is silence followed by cuts in services.
I congratulate the Government on opening the meetings of health authorities and trusts to the public. With the help of my local community health trust, I have obtained the dates of public meetings and, in the coming months, I plan to distribute a list to all interested parties for wide circulation in my constituency. However, we must go further, by having lists of such meetings posted in GPs' surgeries. Perhaps every surgery should have a television set, which could also show films and videos to inform local people. We must grapple with this difficult subject of consultation, so that we can formulate a coherent, sustainable and effective strategy for consultation of local people. It will be a daunting task. The Turnberg report gives pointers, but we need to go further.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The report states that a positive communication strategy is necessary to facilitate pan-London debates on the capital's health service. Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent result in the recent London referendum augurs well for such a debate under the auspices of a Greater London authority? Does he further agree that one of the reasons for so much under-investment in London's health service is precisely because London has not had a voice?

Mr. Casale: I agree. Londoners are not as aware as they should be of regional disparities in health care. Although the authority may not have a direct role in the expert provision of health care, it should give Londoners a greater say in the shaping of local health care. The Greater London authority will be valuable, as will the London civic forum, in informing Londoners about the key issues of strategic health care in the capital. Involving local people will be the first hurdle that we must surmount, and it is part of the wider consultation strategy on health services in which those bodies will play a vital role.
Local commissioning groups are mentioned in the Turnberg report and they are beginning to take shape in my constituency in line with the White Paper proposals.


There is a potential cluster of important primary health care trusts in my constituency. At its heart is the Nelson hospital which can be a hub for the services and a future high-quality community hospital. I am working on that with the full co-operation of the St. Helier trust and I should also like to involve the Government and my constituents in that process. I was delighted by the recent visit to my constituency of the Minister's PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to discuss how we can proceed.
It is the 50th anniversary of the NHS, which should be allowed at least to voice a wish list of what it wants for its birthday. For my constituency, I should like to see not only a start made on improving services at Nelson hospital, making it the hub of new services, linking it with the new primary care trusts, but a review of the capitation formula and more resources nationwide for the health service, so that my constituents and those throughout London receive the health services that they certainly deserve and desperately need.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I wish to make just three quick points under the auspices of this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate. As has been said, it is much needed.
The three quick points that I want to make are, first, that I think I sit somewhere between those who suggest that we should have directly elected borough health representatives and those who suggest that the Greater London authority should fulfil the role. I said on Second and, I think, Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill that it was crucial that the Greater London authority had a key scrutiny role at least in relation to strategic provision for London's health. I still adhere to that view and hope that that comes out when we get to the legislation, but I agree that it should have a strategic role rather than a specific Londonwide commissioning role.
Secondly, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who mentioned me carte blanche, I suppose, with other north-west London Labour Members in relation to Edgware, has now gone. It is touching that he is now suddenly involved and concerned about Edgware's accident and emergency department. I was a key figure in the campaign for that department for four years and can say happily, hand on heart, that we saw the hon. Gentleman precisely zero times throughout that campaign.
Guilty men were involved in that campaign, but happily we have seen their demise as Conservative Members of Parliament. They are Messrs Gorst and Dykes, who—I choose my words extremely carefully—have lied through their teeth to the public in the past year about some silly bit of paper that they had by way of a promise from the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), about the A and E department remaining open.
The only honest person—again, I choose my words carefully—in the whole process in the then Government was the right hon. Member for Charnwood, who said in June 1996 that the A and E department was closing and

that he would do all that he could to ensure that it closed long before the general election ensued. He stuck to his promise and, on April fools' day 1997, the department was closed beyond redemption in terms of buildings, legal contracts and assorted other tendering processes. Therefore, we will take no lessons from the now absent hon. Member for Chipping Barnet or from any other Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) should please rub the bit about Edgware out of his debut speech from the Dispatch Box.
The third point concerns specialisms, one particular sector on which Turnberg does not really touch; it was not in the brief, which is fine. I have the great pleasure of having the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS trust slap bang in the middle of my constituency. It carries out orthopaedic work of international repute, which is beyond any challenge. The hospital is a fairly substantial one and carries out a major specialism.
The hospital has been waiting for the best part of 15 or 20 years for the regional health authority to secure its future on the current Stanmore site. The latest bureaucratic nicety from the authority is a musculo-skeletal review, which will determine whether that orthopaedic provision will be available on the Stanmore site, or otherwise. There will be serious ramifications and knock-on effects for surrounding local hospitals throughout north-west London if the future of the Royal National Orthopaedic is not secured.
Happily, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), has agreed to meet me and other north-west London Members to try to resolve the situation. For such a significant national treasure in the NHS still to be floundering after 15 or 20 years with its future not secured is wrong; that situation must come to an end at the earliest possible time. If it does not, and it lingers on and on, the hospital will fail. It will fail ultimately to attract key international personnel, who happily come to it for some work experience and training, and it will fail to attract the brightest national brains in terms of orthopaedic provision and musculo-skeletal work.
I hope that the Minister of State—not necessarily in his winding-up speech, but subsequently, when we meet—will tell us that the position of the Royal National Orthopaedic is assured. I know that His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who opened a significant scanner on the site yesterday and had the pleasure of visiting a ward there that was named after his father, would endorse the proposals. Everyone in north-west London would. I hope that that proposal, which is, I accept, a non-Turnberg proposal, is addressed sooner rather than later, for the betterment of health provision.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) kindly referred to this as my first attempt to reply at the Dispatch Box, and indeed it is. It is a great pleasure at last to be dealing with doctors rather than spin doctors.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has done the House a service in raising this topic for debate. It is a matter of great importance and, of course, of legitimate constituency interest to him. However, he suffered something of a memory lapse when he said that Queen Mary's hospital would enjoy a different future. Indeed it will, but it is very different from the future that his party promised in the run-up to the general election.
The Conservative health team will endeavour at all stages to be constructive. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the NHS, our mission is to help to develop and to improve it. It may be fertile territory for political combat, but our side will never join battle at the expense of the NHS. This issue requires mature attention. A capital city is a complicated area for health provision. The issue is politically charged, but where there is rapid medical progress, where there are demographic and infrastructure changes, where there is deterioration in buildings and development pressure around them, there is a need from time to time for a fundamental review, which is exactly what we did with the Tomlinson report and, for rather different reasons, what the Government are doing with the Turnberg report.
It is sad that the response to Tomlinson when we were in government was not mature. The then Opposition did not attempt to improve the health service. It was low party politics. The result was that the present Government became boxed in, which is why the Turnberg report was necessary in the first place. It was designed as something behind which the Government could hide. Perhaps the most cynical would say that it was designed as a convenient dustbin for their pre-election promises. It was not about saving hospitals: it was about saving the Minister's face. It is no thanks to the Government that Sir Leslie Turnberg managed to convert his task into such a useful exercise. His starting point was that primary care in the capital matters. I think that we all share that view and recognise that the debate principally centres on hospitals.
The Government came to office with a pledge to review London's health service. They came with a certain amount of pre-election baggage because they had promised an enormous amount to local communities. They played on the fears about the future of local hospitals; many of those who voted Labour believed that a Labour Government would save those hospitals, just as Labour had promised, only to find that they are now severely disappointed.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it was a mature decision by the previous Government to close Bart's, and that it is part of the pre-election baggage of this Government to ensure that it remains open as a facility for Londoners?

Mr. Duncan: I will come in a moment to the deceit that the Government have shown on the issue of Bart's and the promises that they made in the run-up to the election which have not been met.
In opposition, the Labour party complained that London had too few hospital beds. One function of the Turnberg report was to allow the Government to claim that London now had about the right number of hospital beds. That was the first step towards their current programme of closures and cuts. The paltry number of extra beds announced the other day by the Secretary of State does not make up the 200 that the Government have slashed from our plans for the new Royal London hospital.
As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has suggested, the Government needed to be able to claim that they had saved Bart's. Turnberg has given them an excellent public relations formula for doing so, despite the

fact that Bart's is now closed as a district general hospital for the local community—a fundamental element of the campaign to save Bart's.

Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly when he will start being mature and constructive?

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen to the facts and feel ashamed that the Government he supports have betrayed so many of the promises which, no doubt, helped him get elected.
A raft of promises were made to the people of Edgware and Roehampton, and the Turnberg report has been able help here, too—offering a convenient way of removing accident and emergency facilities from local people.
I should like to ask the Minister certain specific questions which it is his duty to answer. The Turnberg report recommends the downgrading of Queen Charlotte's hospital, with Hammersmith taking on most of the extra work load. We are concerned, as is Turnberg, about the clinical base of Hammersmith hospital. If it is to be able to handle the extra work caused by the transfer of Queen Charlotte hospital's facilities, significant investment in Hammersmith will be needed, and there are concerns about the suitability of the Hammersmith site for such work. May I have an assurance from the Minister on his plans for investing in Hammersmith?
I should like the Minister to explain how the interim period before such investment occurs will be handled. What plans does he have for increased co-ordination with Queen Charlotte's hospital and Charing Cross hospital? How will the financial base for the hospital be managed? Those are important questions which I hope he will answer.
The Secretary of State was proud to have saved Bart's. He admitted as much in the original debate on Turnberg, when he said that one of his principal reasons for commissioning the report was to avoid the history books recording that it was he who closed that ancient hospital. That was noble of him, but Bart's, in the way he promised, has not been saved. Bart's has been closed as a district general hospital for local people. It will no longer serve the community. To its traditional patient base, Bart's no longer exists.
In addition, health care in south-west London was a significant pre-election battleground for the Government. The people of Roehampton—who the hon. Member for Putney conveniently seems to have forgotten—were given specific assurances by their Labour candidates, and they must feel disillusioned that they put their trust in them. The decision in effect to close Queen Mary's hospital, with the removal of its accident and emergency facilities, has broken Labour's pre-election promise to keep that institution open.

Mr. Colman: I see this as a personal attack on me. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the decisions to close the acute surgery service and other acute services and to downgrade the accident and emergency department were taken in the November before the general election and were acted on on 1 April, all fools' day, one month before the election?

Mr. Duncan: All Labour candidates who had an interest in the hospital—and in the party's campaign


nationally—led the country to believe that such a decision would be reversed. That has not happened, and it is that deceit which I find so contemptible.
The Turnberg reforms have many merits. There are questions that I hope the Minister will answer, but it is difficult to trust the Government on something like this in the climate in which they are running the NHS today. People should be aware that, when the Government say that they have increased funding, they have not. There is £940 million less going to the health service than would have been the case had the Conservative party returned to office. Waiting lists have gone up by 137,000.
What in Sir Leslie Turnberg's proposals will suffer as a result of the Minister's panic and efforts to restore waiting lists to the levels that the Government inherited from us? I have high hopes for health care in London, but little confidence that the Government will deliver. They are spending less, closing more and making people wait longer. In that context, it is unlikely that the Turnberg proposals will deliver the health care that we all expect.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. This debate is extremely important, not just for his constituents and for him, but for the House as a whole—and particularly for hon. Members representing London constituencies.
The Government share my hon. Friend's aim of ensuring that Londoners in all parts of this capital city have access to the highest-quality health care possible—not just in hospitals, but through primary care and community health services.
For the first time in decades—thanks to Sir Leslie Turnberg and his team, and the Government's adoption of all the recommendations—there is now a clear agenda for health, health services and social care in London. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when announcing the Government's acceptance of the Turnberg report on 3 February, the time for action on London's health service has arrived.
Sir Leslie Turnberg's team did a remarkable job, and I pay tribute to him and them. The comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) were astonishing. He must be the only person in this building—he is probably the only person in London—who supported the Tomlinson report, which found no favour with the public, politicians and, most important, with the people who work in the NHS in this city. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, there has been universal praise for the way in which the review was carried out, and there has been broad agreement on the diagnosis of the problems.
The recommendations not only tackled major strategic concerns—to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred—but dealt in a hard-headed way with extremely difficult operational issues. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, those issues do not go away. Change is endemic in the NHS. Turnberg, and the Government's acceptance of the report's recommendations, does not put

a halt to change in the NHS; it is the start of a 10-year modernisation programme for the NHS in London and its environment.
Watford and the surrounding hospitals are the subject of consultation. We will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said and ensure that, when the final decisions are taken, they will be in the best interests of patients in his constituency and others served by those hospitals.
We are at the start of the programme which will see London's health service getting better step by step, year by year. It is important that we make it clear from the outset that there is much on which to build. We often concentrate in these debates on things that are wrong, and there is much that is wrong in London's health service. However, there is a great deal of which to be proud as well—great hospitals at the cutting edge of medicine, science, teaching and research, high-quality local hospitals, GP surgeries and more. There are also formidable challenges for London's NHS. The best services in the land sit cheek by jowl with some of the worst.
Turnberg reversed the absurd Tomlinson position that London was over-bedded compared with the rest of the country. The Government seek to build on that important recognition. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether the commitment to improving waiting lists was continuing. I remind him that Turnberg called for more detailed work on ensuring that we have the right number of beds. That work is being done, and the evaluation is continuing. We will have to ensure that we have the right resources, staff and bed numbers to ensure that we get waiting lists down—we want to do that not only this year, but in subsequent years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There was a recommendation that the panel should examine the bed issue. The Minister said that that work has already started. Does he have any idea when he will receive recommendations on bed numbers and the implications of those numbers?

Mr. Milburn: I do not, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as I do. If he contacts my office, we can arrange a response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) spoke about the sheer size of London and the problems that that creates. Our capital city has a unique health service, which has unique problems in serving massive health needs. We are determined specifically to tackle London's deprivation and inequalities. The fact is that 40 per cent. of Londoners are among the most deprived 10 per cent. of our country's population. Sir Leslie and his team rightly highlighted the special needs of many groups in London, such as elderly people, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, homeless people, refugees and asylum seekers. We have to translate our good intentions for those groups into action.

Mr. Wilkinson: From the Minister's statement today, may we have confidence that there will never be a translation of financial resources out of London into the provinces? The old resource allocation working party system did the health service in London great damage.

Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I am about to deal with the resource allocation issue, partly in response to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
The action necessary to deal with problems cannot occur without partnership. Working together in partnership, across boundaries, is vital if we are to improve services, improve the health of Londoners and—most important—tackle the appalling health inequalities that scar our capital city. We are therefore fostering co-operation in the NHS, by getting rid of the internal market introduced by the Tories when in government. To tackle those inequalities, we are also breaking down the Berlin walls between health and social care, the NHS and local authorities, and the public and voluntary sector.
New ways of joint working are being pioneered in London's two health action zones—which represent a recognition of the fact that the job of improving health is one for local government, employers, community organisations and the NHS. Such an approach to partnership is in line with the Turnberg recommendations.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend mention the widely supported proposals on pooling health and social services budgets?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will soon produce a consultation document on how to ensure greater flexibility in the provision of health and social care services—for the benefit of patients, especially those who are at the interface of those services, such as elderly people, people with metal health problems and people with disabilities. The document will deal with the pooled budget issue.
The Government accepted all the Turnberg recommendations, and we have acted quickly to create a programme to implement them. We will deliver better services for Londoners through investment and modernisation. The two go together.
We are committed, first, to sustained investment in health services and facilities in London. Since we came to power—to contradict the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—the Government have invested £300 million in London's national health service. Last year, £26 million went to the capital, to ease pressures on health and social services provision. This year, £48 million has been targeted specifically at lowering waiting lists in London. As a consequence of the tough targets that we have set ourselves in reducing waiting lists, by March 1999 London's national health service should have more than 10,000 fewer patients waiting for treatment than the record level of March 1997 which we inherited from the Tories.
The extra money for this year includes £30 million targeted on primary care, mental health, intermediate care and community services. We will provide at least an additional £140 million of investment in those services for London over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Today's debate has rightly concentrated on London's hospitals. However, primary care is the primary point of contact with the NHS for the overwhelming majority of Londoners. As we know, there is much to commend primary care services in the capital. However, there is also much that is wrong with the services, which we are determined to put right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the problem of recruiting a sufficient number of general practitioners in the capital.

We fully endorse the need for Londoners to receive their fair share of GPs. A national group—which includes Professor Jarman, who was a member of Sir Leslie's team—is working to identify a formula that would accord every area its proper share of family doctors. The results should be available in the summer.

Ms Hodge: Is consideration being given to introducing salaried general practitioners in those London areas where it is extremely difficult to recruit people into general practice?

Mr. Milburn: I assure my hon. Friend that we have successfully reached an agreement with the British Medical Association, and have—for the first time in the history of the NHS—introduced a salaried doctors scheme, which I believe will be the way forward in many areas where it is currently difficult to recruit GPs. The scheme will bring new, younger and energetic GPs into general practice, which will be a great improvement in primary care in many parts of London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked about resource allocation, and how we can ensure that London receives its fair share of resources. As he knows, a working group is dealing with the matter and will report later this year. I expect that its recommendations will be implemented in the next financial year.
As part of a modernisation programme, there is more investment in London's front-line health services. Moreover, that money for front-line services is backed by capital investment, as we cannot build a 21st-century NHS in London in 19th century hospitals. The Turnberg report paved the way for £800 million of new investment to build more new, modern hospitals and to improve existing ones—such as at the West Middlesex, University College hospital, King's and St. George's. It paved the way also for a proper, 21st-century hospital in Whitechapel. Furthermore, we are not only saving Bart's—which the previous Government intended to close—but giving it a great future.
There will also be a great future as a local community hospital for Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton. Five years of uncertainty is at an end. Queen Mary's will have a robust and healthy future, providing services for local people into the next century. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and by the hospital league of friends. Most of all, I pay tribute to the work done by the hospital's staff, who have ensured that services are delivered throughout a most difficult period of uncertainty and confusion—which is now at an end. Our plans will give staff and the local community a new hospital for a new century.
We have also endorsed the London review recommendation that a new hospital should be built in the Oldchurch area. The Havering Hospitals NHS trust is producing a strategic outline case for that investment. We expect the case for making the investment to be a strong one. If it is, the trust will be able to take forward procurement in 1999.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster expressed concern about the Harold Wood site. Harold Wood's future will have to be considered in the light of the Oldchurch development. Similarly, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) that plans for the new hospital will take account of the


relatively new facilities at King George's hospital, and that clinicians from King George's are actively involved in helping to plan services at the new hospital.
I am aware that, because of work done by the trust, submissions on Guy's and St. Thomas's will be made to me. I also realise that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has an alternative proposal. As I said when I met him, I should be more than happy to consider his proposal. I should be happy to meet him again, if he thinks that that is necessary.
I also assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that Hammersmith is a very important hospital and that it has a secure future. However, we have to assess how best it should play its part in delivering local health services within the overall context of services in west London. That is why we are reviewing services in the area and the Hammersmith is part of that review.
Those are all far-reaching changes for London's NHS, which will not be easy to achieve and which will require time and careful management. We have faced difficult decisions and an unenviable legacy from our predecessors of uncertainty and failure, but we are making considerable progress, with new hospitals being built, extra cash being invested and a new direction for London's health service being implemented. There is a long way to go to deliver the first-class NHS that the Government want to be available throughout London, but we have made a good start and we are determined to make rapid progress. We believe that Londoners deserve no less.

Newhaven Port

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate a debate on a matter that is vital to my constituency and, as I shall try to shows, to the economy of a much wider sub-region.
This is a critical time for Newhaven. The port is at a crossroads, if the House will forgive the mixed metaphor. It has the potential to become a major success story of the next century, but might also slip away, leaving a shell of derelict buildings, rusting metal and high unemployment. It could go either way, and which way it goes will depend, at least in part, on the events of the next few months. The Government, local councils and, crucially, the private sector must all deliver if we are succeed, and I see it as part of my job to ensure that that happens.
Let me deal with the port's potential. First, there is the its geographical location: it is not, as some tend to portray it, at the periphery, but well inside the triangle that takes in London, Paris and Brussels; if one draws a line from London to Paris, Newhaven is the port closest to that line. The port's potential is shown by the fact that 1.2 million people live within an hour's drive of Newhaven. However, when people think of channel ports, they think of Dover, Southampton and Portsmouth, and consistently underrate Newhaven's potential.
Secondly, there is the Newhaven Economic Partnership which, as the Minister will know, is a private company, limited by guarantee, set up to revitalise the port. All the town's major employers are represented, including Sea Containers, which owns the port; P and O Stena, which operates the ferry service; James Fisher and Sons, which has in Newhaven the largest cold store for imported fruit and vegetables in the country; and companies such as Parker Pen and Concord Lighting, which are major employers in Newhaven.
All three levels of local council are represented—the county, the district and the town—and so am I, as the local Member of Parliament. In addition, Lewes tertiary college is also an active member, giving valuable help on employment training.
The NEP has been successful in securing single regeneration fund money from the Government, capital challenge funding for a new port access road and Interreg money earmarked for local schemes. In addition, the partners, especially the local councils, have committed funds to the partnership's pot. That has helped with several valuable local projects, such as saving the Hillcrest centre, which is a focal point for the community.
Thirdly, there is the unique and strong relationship with Dieppe. The ferry crossing between the two ports goes back well into the last century. In recent years, Dieppe has had a huge amount of investment in its port, and the French now want the same to happen in Newhaven. To that end, a joint action group was formed between Dieppe chamber of commerce and Lewes district council. More recently, the chamber became a full member of the NEP, which is the first time a French chamber has voluntarily put itself under the jurisdiction of English law. Dieppe believes in the crossing and in Newhaven; it is now time to show clearly that people on this side of the channel also believe in Newhaven.
That leads me to the current situation. An improved port is absolutely essential to the future of Newhaven and to the wider sub-region, including Brighton.


The regeneration project in Newhaven is a complex jigsaw, which will not work unless all the pieces are in place. An improved port is the key piece, to which all others are connected.
The port in its current configuration is limited in capacity in a way which, if it remains unimproved, spells had news for Newhaven tomorrow. The present generation of ferries can only just negotiate the port, and, with bigger ferries coming on stream elsewhere, Newhaven faces a loss of competitiveness against other south coast ports if it cannot match any increase in size.
Furthermore, the depth of the port—only 5m—means that James Fisher and Sons is operating well below capacity, because boats are getting bigger, and now touch the bottom when they arrive. That in turn makes it difficult for shippers to obtain insurance cover, with the result that business goes elsewhere. Time and again, contracts have been won by Fisher, only to be lost at the last minute because of the insurance problem. Put bluntly, there must be a possibility that Fisher, a major employer in the town, will close and the ferry operation be scaled down, with the loss of numerous jobs, if an improved port cannot be provided soon. It was that fact that provided a major impetus for the setting up of the NEP.
The good news is that many of the jigsaw pieces have been assembled, and some are fixed together. Planning permission has been achieved for a new outer port, subject to a few final details being ironed out by the district council as the planning authority. Planning permission has also been granted for a new port access road, which will link the trunk road network with the port. Those two proposals are inextricably linked to the port's future. Formal withdrawal of outstanding objections to compulsory purchase orders has been achieved, so that obstacle is out of the way.
The existing road winds around residential streets, passing a nursery school and local shops. It is the most inappropriate port access imaginable. The new road will not only solve that problem and link the trunk road network with the new outer port, but also open up access to the biggest unused piece of land identified for industrial purposes anywhere along the south coast—at least between Eastbourne and Worthing, and probably further. The land will be used to provide an Eastside business park. The road scheme is estimated to cost £7.8 million, with £6.8 million coming from a successful capital challenge bid and the rest from Interreg funding.
It is worth noting that East Sussex county council has already spent around £500,000 on design and securing planning permission for the road. The council also says that it is prepared to shoulder the debt payments from servicing the capital challenge funding, which will come to another £500,000. The county council tells me that it is fully committed to building the road, and I and the people of Newhaven intend to hold them to that commitment.
That is the background; I apologise for the fact that I have taken some time to set it out, but I thought it best to put matters in context. I come now to what I should like the Government to do to help Newhaven.
First, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out exactly what the Government's strategy is for ports, especially their vision for the south coast. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware of the European Union Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure, so I

presume that she has already given that key matter some thought. Currently, 80 per cent. of cross-channel traffic goes through Kent. Does the Minister agree that it is sensible not to put all one's eggs in one basket? The benefits of diversity alone suggest that Newhaven should be protected and enhanced—small ports have an important role to play. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to a diversity of ports, and that they will oppose any contraction of the number available on the south coast?
Given that Newhaven is already on the trans-European rail network, will the Minister undertake to help to put together a case for EU funding for Newhaven port, which might well be available under the proposals in the Green Paper, as I understand them? In short, I am asking for an assurance that the Government, like people in Newhaven and Dieppe, believe that Newhaven port has a solid future in the next century. If the answer to that is yes, I ask the Minister to put that on the record today, because that assurance alone will help in the current circumstances. In addition, it is unclear what is to be the role of the regional development agencies in port policy and support, so some clarification would be helpful.
I said that the trans-European rail network includes Newhaven, and I ask for the Minister's help in that respect. Is she aware that Railtrack's published plans for the next 10 years do not even mention Newhaven? That is despite the trans-European link, despite the fact that major redevelopment of the port would give an opportunity to combine the current three railway stations—which are a shambolic first sight for visitors arriving in Newhaven from the continent—into one brand-new one, and despite the fact that there is considerable potential for moving freight by rail from Newhaven. The infrastructure from decades ago still remains, and the rail lines literally go down to the quayside.
There is still plenty of land for expansion, and, as the Minister knows from our correspondence, English, Welsh and Scottish Railfreight has expressed considerable interest in the site. Indeed, the company's No. 2 in this country, Julian Worth, has met me and others from the Newhaven Economic Partnership on site to discuss the potential. He went away interested in Newhaven port.
The Government are rightly committed to shifting the bias of transport away from the private car and lorry and on to more environmentally friendly transport, including rail. Does the Minister therefore share my view that plans for a new port in Newhaven provide a wonderful opportunity to achieve the Government's objectives? If a new port were almost totally dependent on private road transport, a great opportunity would have been missed.
My requests of the Government in respect of rail are as follows. Will they continue to support Newhaven's place in the trans-European network? Will they give support today for the principle of rail freight movements from and through Newhaven? Will they make representations to Railtrack in order that it assesses the potential for Newhaven, with a view to putting the scheme in its forward programme?
Will the Government please reconsider their decision not to stop the sale of so-called redundant rail land in the town, the loss of which might jeopardise the development of rail freight in the port? I apologise to the Minister for raising that yet again, but I am working on the basis that,


if I raise it frequently enough, I may get the answer for which I am looking. Even limiting sales to companies with rail interests would help. The policy of disposal of land that was identified as surplus by the Tories, who were not interested in rail and are not present for today's debate, is so out of line with the Government's mainly refreshingly sensible transport policy.
On the wider transport infrastructure, will the Government examine what is being done in Dieppe to see how improvements in Newhaven might dovetail? Will the Government undertake to consider the A26 and the parallel rail line as part of a corridor study on the route north of Newhaven, in line with proposals for such studies in the Government's forthcoming White Paper on transport—if newspaper stories are to be believed?
I return to the key aspect of the debate: proposals for an improved port and a new port access road. The start of construction on the port access road has slipped due to uncertainties over the new port and the merger of two ferry companies. The merger has also made it very difficult for P and O Stena Line and Sea Containers to reach a long-term agreement, given the merger's restrictive conditions.
Under those circumstances, it is being discussed whether, in the interim, it may make sense for the road to access a new deeper berth in the existing harbour rather than a brand new port immediately. That could well cut through some of the problems, deliver an improvement in time to safeguard the port, and achieve the aims that the Government originally set out when approving capital challenge funding. I am advised that such a modified route for the road would not require a new planning application.
I ask the Government for time and flexibility to tie up negotiations among the various partners. In the past few days, as the Minister will imagine, I have spoken to several partners in the public and private sectors to assess progress, and I believe that a solution is in sight and achievable. It is therefore crucial that the rug is not pulled from under our feet by rigid adherence to a timetable that was set under different circumstances.
The Government office for the south-east has been constructive and entirely helpful in the process, but can obviously go only so far without a ministerial steer. Will the Minister use her contacts to put pressure on the private sector in particular to reach agreements that will enable investment to proceed? The public sector locally has, by and large. delivered its part of the bargain.
Newhaven has suffered from years of under-investment. The merger of P and O and Stena Line, although representing a strengthening of the position in Newhaven, has nevertheless caused short-term uncertainty. The forthcoming loss of duty-free trade has added to that, and could be bad for the town. I cannot emphasise enough, however, that Newhaven's potential is enormous as a cross-channel ferry port and railhead, a back-up to the channel tunnel—the only potential one—a major import-export location, and an economic engine for the entire sub-region as far north as Haywards Heath and East Grinstead.
Like a game in a Christmas cracker, this matter is a question of getting all the silver balls into the holes at the same time. The Government's attitude to Newhaven, how flexible they are in funding the port access road,

how seriously they take the potential for rail freight, how hard they are prepared to lean on those in the private sector, the signals that they send out and the stance that they take, are all crucial. I ask the Minister to respond positively and helpfully to my points—I am sure she will—in order to let the people of Newhaven know that the Government are on their side and will help them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. As he so rightly says, the topic of Newhaven port is of importance not only to his constituents but to the entire region.
The port of Newhaven is a major local employment provider through companies such as P and O Stena Line and James Fisher, employing several hundred people. As the hon. Member pointed out, it plays an important role in linking the south-east region with the markets of continental Europe, and, like neighbouring Shoreham, is a key port in handling marine aggregates for the construction industry. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, it handles a variety of traffic, including passengers, fruit and vegetables, forest products and fish. As he further pointed out, there has been recent investment in a cool storage facility for fruit and vegetable traffic. In all, the port handled 1.3 million tonnes of cargo in 1996, with a passenger throughput of 841,000 and about 160,000 vehicles.
In December 1996, East Sussex county council was awarded credit approval of £6.8 million under the capital challenge towards the £7.8 million cost of the port access road. The road, as the hon. Member for Lewes also pointed out in great detail, is seen as the key to the regeneration of Newhaven. The wider regeneration scheme for Newhaven amounts to more than £80 million, which includes £6.5 million single regeneration budget challenge funding. Most of the private sector investment—Sea Containers Ltd. and P and O Stena Line—will be in the renewal of Newhaven port, including the construction of the outer harbour. The road, the harbour and the wider regeneration of the town are inextricably linked.
East Sussex county council has also submitted a bid through the European funding programme, Interreg, for a £1 million contribution towards the port access road. The application has been received, and is being considered by the Government Office for the South-East and my Department.
In addition, Lewes district council has applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for grants to aid the fisheries aspect of the port's modernisation. Up to 50 per cent. grant is available from MAFF for work including rebuilding the fishermen's jetties and a new fish market building. The application is under consideration by MAFF. Grant for a feasibility study for the development of the port has already been made available under the PESCA scheme for restructuring fishing dependent areas.
Although I am aware of such plans for a major redevelopment of the port facilities at Newhaven, and cognisant of the pleas of the hon. Member for Lewes, I cannot comment on the detail of the plans, because they may be subject to approvals from my Department,


for which formal applications have yet to be made. The environmental impact of such a project will be carefully considered as part of the approvals procedure.
As well as raising several detailed points about Newhaven port, the hon. Member raised a number of points about the Government's general policy towards ports and port development. As he will be aware, and as the House knows, we are shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's integrated transport policy. We fully recognise that our ports are a vital link in the supply chain. Some 95 per cent. of our international trade by volume, as well as considerable domestic traffic, goes through them. We must ensure that they are integrated into our transport networks in ways which contribute to the aims of a more effective and more environmentally friendly transport system.
It is important to recognise that our ports are competing vigorously both in the United Kingdom and the European market. We therefore support measures to develop a level playing field throughout Europe, and we will continue to support policies that encourage competition and efficiency in the ports industry on a fully commercial basis. In doing so, we will also seek to ensure fair employment standards and better, more effective regulation of safety issues and environmental safeguards.
Our broad aims are to ensure that ports play a full role in supporting the competitiveness of their regions: that any port development is sympathetic to the surrounding natural environment and local communities. Ports can enhance sustainable freight distribution by their connection to more environmentally friendly modes, and increased port efficiency can increase the attractiveness of those modes.
Newhaven, like almost every other port, depends for its business on freight movements by road—but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is one of the many that also has rail access. We agree with him that we must try to ensure that in future advantage is taken of that fact wherever possible in encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail.
The context for those broad aims is a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society. That is a huge challenge, and one of the encouraging aspects of an ambitious task is the degree of consensus throughout the nation on the need to change.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in good access to the port of Newhaven. He will know that we are carrying out a review of the role of trunk roads, including the A27. We have involved a wide range of advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. As he also knows, we are developing a new appraisal methodology that takes a wider view of accessibility by all modes in terms of the economy and the environment.
Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads. To make better use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
We must also look seriously at other harder options, such as managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic.

It encompasses reducing the need to travel, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and, inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
We have held regional consultations to elicit views on whether the schemes in the inherited roads programme address the most important transport problems, or whether other problems deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review—a firm short-term investment programme and a programme of studies to look at the remaining problems, out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the proposed access road to the harbour. As he said, that scheme, designed to link the trunk road network to the proposed new port and ferry terminal, received credit approval of £6.8 million through the capital challenge pilot scheme in December 1996. Capital challenge is a three-year pilot, and all funding is programmed to terminate at the end of March 2000.
Cognisant of the plea that the hon. Gentleman has repeated, I must tell him that there are no plans to extend that deadline at present. Proposed changes to the scheme, resulting from any revision of the development plans, would have to be consistent with the initial aims of the capital challenge bid. I understand that to date no firm proposals have been received, although there have been some preliminary discussions of different options.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the possibility of the scheme's slipping. I understand that the county council has resolved not to proceed with the road until there is valid planning permission for the port and a firm commitment from Sea Containers to proceed with the port improvements. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, the road network is only one piece of the transport jigsaw. He also mentioned freight to and from Newhaven port.
The Government are determined to encourage greater use of the railways for passengers and freight. We want to see improvements in existing rail services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited a fragmented rail system with no strategic vision for the development of the network, a confusing regulatory system, and a need for leadership and direction.
The Government have already demonstrated their intentions by conducting a fundamental review of rail regulation, including the Rail Regulator's inquiry into the rolling stock leasing market. We have also taken action within the existing regulatory constraints. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced an interim package of measures designed to boost regulation of the railways, which included new objectives for the franchising director. Those require him to manage existing franchise contracts tightly in the public interest, by making sure that train operators live up to their contractual commitments.
We have made it clear that our overriding goal is to get more freight on to rail. We are currently considering what further action we may take to boost rail freight in the


context of the integrated transport policy White Paper. Action has already been taken to encourage more freight on to the railway by overhauling the freight grants scheme. Shortly after coming to office, we doubled the grant available for moving freight from the roads, and we have increased it by a further £10 million for the year 1998–99. An initiative to publicise the system has resulted in nearly all last year's £30 million being taken up, and £28 million of this year's grant money is already accounted for.
Railtrack is investigating the scope to develop several major routes for freight, and, with a group of local authorities, is studying congestion on the south coast rail route from Weymouth to Dover with the aim of improving services to encourage more use of the route. We are watching that study with interest. The new freight companies have adopted positive attitudes and ambitious targets that would quadruple the proportion of freight tonne kilometres by rail over the next 10 years. Rail freight volume has already shown a 5 per cent. growth in tonne kilometres over 1996–97—the first such increase in many years.
We acknowledge there is more to be done. We are committed to the creation of a new rail authority, and will announce our proposals in the White Paper. The authority is likely to have responsibility for, among other things, managing and enforcing existing franchise contracts, developing a strategic vision for investment in the network, promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport, and balancing the needs of passengers and freight users, as no one body currently can.
I understand that a community partnership venture between the operating company Connex South Central and Newhaven Economic Partnership has been set up, as a result of which the station at Newhaven will receive a face lift later this summer. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bad state not only of the network but of stations in his area. We too recognise the importance of clean, smart, comfortable and safe public transport facilities in helping to encourage people to switch from their cars to using public transport.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the abolition of duty-free sales, and its anticipated effect on the port of Newhaven. I can only say that the decision to abolish intra-European Union duty-free sales was taken unanimously by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991 as part of the single market programme. It is primarily a

fiscal matter, and not a matter for the United Kingdom in isolation but subject to unanimity among the 15 member states.
We have said that we would not oppose any move by the Commission to set up a study into the effects of the abolition of duty-free sales. There is, however, no consensus of support among the member states for a continuation of duty-free sales, or even for a study of the impact of abolition. We are, through Customs and Excise, in discussion with UK trade interests and the Commission to explore the practicalities of implementing the successor regime after June 1999, when abolition takes effect.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing Government support for Newhaven port to the attention of the House. As I have said, more than £13 million in Government funding has been committed so far to assisting the regeneration of Newhaven, and I can assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port to the local, regional and national economy.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the specific issues on which he wanted a direct commitment on my part will be covered in our White Paper on an integrated transport system. They will also be covered in the more detailed documents on regional development. He rightly raised the subject of the sale of railway land, and, from a sedentary position, I responded by referring to the "drip, drip" technique. He is well aware that, when the railways were privatised, the land deemed most essential for the future expansion of our railway system went into Railtrack's ownership—that is, the remaining lands in Railway Properties Ltd.
All such land is advertised before sale, and the freight companies are advised of proposed sales. I understand that the piece of land that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is shortly to go out to tender, and I know that Railway Properties Ltd. has made it abundantly clear to interested parties that it is available. I well understand his argument that such land should be reserved, but I am sure that he will understand that freezing the land could have a most deleterious effect on the market for such properties, and that Railway Properties Ltd. has a duty to ensure that such sales are for the benefit of the public purse.
Although I cannot give detailed responses to many of the pleas that the hon. Gentleman made in a most interesting speech, I assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port—as he rightly said, it is important to the economy not only locally, but regionally and nationally. I have little doubt that, when he sees our White Paper, he will be very pleased with its content.

Western Sahara

Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to Western Sahara, which is under Moroccan occupation. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on that sadly neglected country.
I first became aware of the situation in Western Sahara in 1985, when I was an aid worker with the charity War on Want, the first United Kingdom organisation to provide assistance to Saharawi refugees from Western Sahara. Since then, I have followed events in the area with interest and, since I was elected to Parliament, I have had the honour to serve as chair of the all-party group on Western Sahara.
I hope the House will forgive me if I indulge in a short history lesson and give the background to the situation, as I am sure that many people, even many hon. Members, are not fully aware of the plight of Western Sahara and the Saharawi people. That is itself a scandal, as the Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara closely mirrored the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion attracted worldwide condemnation and swift international intervention, whereas the Moroccan invasion was swept under the international carpet—there was no international uproar or military force to liberate Western Sahara, although cynics may say that that was because there are no working oilfields in Western Sahara.
Western Sahara lies on the Atlantic coast of Africa, between Mauritania and Morocco. Historically, the people who lived there—the Saharawi—were nomadic and had a life style similar to that of their Tuareg neighbours. The area was colonised by the Spanish in the 19th century and named Spanish Sahara. The indigenous people, as in most other African countries that were colonies, set up an independence movement to resist colonisation, the Polisario Front. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly called on Spain to organise a referendum of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. Spain organised a census in 1974, which revealed that 74,000 Saharawi people were living in the territory—that figure was supposed to serve as the basis for an electorate for the referendum, which, it was planned, would happen speedily. The road to independence seemed to be laid out.
Morocco did not like that one bit, and laid claim to the territory. The International Court of Justice was asked to deliver an opinion on whether Morocco or Mauritania had any claim to the area; it found that there were no historic ties that could debar Spanish Sahara from decolonisation or from self-determination. Again, the way seemed clear for the Saharawi people to move forward to independence.
In response, Morocco almost immediately invaded Western Sahara. Tens of thousands of Saharawi people fled. Women and children were bombed by Moroccan forces and napalm was used against them—it was an international scandal, but, sadly, the international community turned its face away. Around 180,000 refugees fled to southern Algeria, where they have lived in enormous camps—huge tented cities—for the past 23 years.
The Saharawi refugees are mostly dependent on food aid administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Despite the dire conditions

in which they live, however, they have created a society in their camps whose rates of literacy are unparalleled in Africa. They have created a good health system and a democratic structure that ensures that women play a full part in running and managing the camps. The fact that the Saharawi people have survived those conditions for 23 years demonstrates their deep desire to secure their right to self-determination—many other groups would have packed their bags and gone home.
For more than 20 years, the Polisario Front waged a guerrilla war against the occupying forces. It had steadfast support from the Organisation of African Unity. When, in 1985, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic—the state in exile—was admitted to OAU membership, Morocco promptly walked out of the organisation.
In 1990, the United Nations—freed from the shackles of the cold war—turned its attention to Western Sahara. A peace plan was drawn up, calling for a referendum based on the 1974 Spanish census to be organised and supervised by the UN. A ceasefire between the warring parties was agreed, and, yet again, all looked set for the Saharawi people to decide whether they wanted their territory to become independent or to be part of Morocco. Sadly, eight years later, the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—MINURSO—is still in the area and the Saharawi people are still waiting for their referendum.
In the intervening years, the UN has failed to enforce its peace plan for Western Sahara. I believe that the main problems have been Morocco's refusal to accept the 1974 census as the basis for the referendum, and its continual disruption of the peace process. The UN mission has faced criticism from its own members. In 1995, Ambassador Frank Ruddy, the former deputy chair of the MINURSO voter identification commission, said that, during his time in Western Sahara,
Morocco conducted, without a raised eyebrow from Boutros Ghali's hand picked representative who ran the referendum, a campaign of terror against the Saharan people. I had not seen anything like it since I observed the apartheid government in South Africa.
In October 1996, Douglas Dryden, the former United States military representative to the special liaison office of MINURSO, said:
the atmosphere at the MINURSO force HQ in L'Ayoun is practically a siege mentality. The mission is not allowed to function independently, but as a creature of the Moroccans. It is the only UN mission that I am aware of where the flag of one of the parties"—
he means the Moroccan flag—
is required to fly alongside that of the UN.
Thankfully, the appointment of Kofi Annan seems to have galvanised the UN into action, giving it a new willingness to make a reality the Saharawi referendum for self-determination. In March 1997, Kofi Annan appointed James Baker, the former US Secretary of State, as his personal envoy to Western Sahara. James Baker moved quickly and, following meetings in London—which were facilitated, I am pleased to say, by the new Labour Government—Lisbon and Houston, Morocco and the Polisario Front agreed to a proposal on voter identification and a code of conduct guaranteeing the UN authority to oversee a fair and free referendum for the Saharawi people.
That agreement, known as the Houston agreement, was endorsed by the UN, and, in December 1997, voter identification was under way. Once again,


the referendum seemed to be back on track. Unfortunately, however, things are not progressing smoothly—in his recent report to the UN Security Council, Kofi Annan admitted that the referendum was unlikely to take place in 1998 as planned. I believe that much of the delay is caused by the Moroccan Government's stalling tactics.
Morocco has, for many years, been engaged in a sustained campaign of intimidation against the Saharawi people in the occupied territory. Saharawi people who call for independence have been systematically detained, tortured and subjected to extra-judicial killings. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of disappearances and torture. Morocco is also pushing for the registration of 12,000 extra voters from specific tribal groups, all of whom live in Morocco; none of them appeared in the 1974 Spanish census, which was, as I said, the agreed basis for the electorate for the referendum.
Like many other organisations, the Labour party has long supported the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. I welcome the role that the Government played in helping James Baker to put the peace plan back on track, and I strongly welcome the part that they have played as president of the Friends of Western Sahara Group at the UN Security Council. I now welcome the chance to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to some questions, whose resolution would, I believe, strongly help the peace process to move forward fairly and speedily. I believe that the British Government can play a dynamic role in moving the peace process to a free and fair referendum and in ensuring that both parties in the dispute keep to the spirit of the Houston agreement.
I understand that the Minister recently visited Morocco, and I should be interested to hear how his discussions with Moroccan Ministers went. In line with our ethical foreign policy, I should particularly like to know whether he has raised the issue of Morocco's continued human rights abuses against the Saharawi people—the arbitrary detentions and torture—with the Moroccan Government. I understand that our Government's position is one of positive engagement with countries with poor human rights records such as China and Indonesia, and I hope that we have been consistent with that in respect of Morocco's poor human rights record. I should also like to know what plans my hon. Friend has to meet representatives of the Polisario Front in order to obtain a balanced view of the current situation in Western Sahara.
My hon. Friend is also aware that, at the beginning of the UN peace plan, the United Kingdom provided personnel to MINURSO, but, for some time now, we have had no presence. We are the only one of the permanent five countries on the UN Security Council not to be providing military or civilian personnel. I feel quite ashamed, given our long-term support for the peace process, that we are not providing that support. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some encouraging news on that.
I also hope that we shall send a United Kingdom delegation of election monitors to cover the run-up to the referendum and the referendum in Western Sahara. As a former election monitor in Albania for the United Kingdom Government, I know how important that is.
Finally, I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that we shall continue to do all we can to ensure that a free and fair referendum happens speedily for the Saharawi people. They have waited long enough. I am sure that the British Government will never allow strategic interests and EU trade negotiations to muddy our view of the justice of the issue. The parallels between the invasion of Western Sahara by Morocco and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq are indisputable. I sincerely hope that the Government will be as tough in their dealings with Morocco, in persuading her to abide by UN resolutions and international law, as they were with the Iraqi regime. The Saharawi people deserve nothing less from a Labour Government.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) for the way in which she introduced the debate. We all know of her long-term interest in and keen commitment to the issue, and I am grateful for her opening comments.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions, and I shall try to answer them fully. She gave us a useful background to the current situation. I shall repeat some of the points she made in the context of my response, but not in any sense to deny the historical background that she set out.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government's policy towards Western Sahara. It is very simple: we seek a just and lasting settlement and we support the United Nations' efforts to bring one about. We want to see a clean, fair and transparent referendum that will give the people of the territory the opportunity to decide whether their future lies with Morocco or as an independent state.
Our commitment to do all that we can to help underlies our support for the United Nations Secretary-General, his personal envoy James Baker and his special representative Charles Dunbar. We have also used our presidency of the European Union to bring the on-going developments in Western Sahara into sharper focus. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that we have played and will continue to play a positive role.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the dispute in Western Sahara has lasted too long and needs to be brought to a swift, mutually acceptable conclusion. We welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan' s appointment just over a year ago of James Baker as his personal envoy to Western Sahara. That was an important step forward. As hon. Members will know, James Baker was charged with the task of assessing the situation and considering whether the United Nations' settlement plan for Western Sahara, which at the time had been stalled for more than a year, could be fully implemented.
James Baker visited the region and decided that, if he was to make any progress, he would have to bring together the parties to the dispute—Morocco and the Polisario—for talks. When he asked the British Government whether we would be able to assist him in his first steps towards achieving that, we were, of course, pleased to help. We provided a suitable venue and logistical support for meetings that he wanted to hold with Morocco, the Polisario, Algeria and Mauritania. I am delighted that we were able to assist in that way, and I can tell my hon. Friend that James Baker was delighted with the support he received from the United Kingdom Labour Government.
The two days of talks that followed, in summer 1997, concluded with Morocco and the Polisario taking the landmark decision to meet face to face, under United Nations auspices, in an attempt to iron out their differences. I hope that, along with James Baker, we can take some credit for that progress. There followed a series of meetings to which my hon. Friend referred—some in London and some in Lisbon—which made valuable progress. In particular, the talks quickly established that both Morocco and the Polisario had no interest in pursuing any political solution other than implementation of the settlement plan. Neither party showed any enthusiasm for any kind of autonomy for the people of the territory within the kingdom of Morocco.
Differences over how the eligibility of individuals to vote might be assessed remained—and remains—the key issue. When they were resolved at the final session of talks in Houston, the Moroccan authorities and the Polisario signed what is now termed the Houston agreement, to which my hon. Friend referred. It included a code of conduct for the referendum. The Secretary-General's report of 13 November 1997 set out the plan and timetable for the referendum, which is scheduled for 7 December 1998.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the House that the Government have been active in respect of Western Sahara. Let me set out some further initiatives and responsibilities that we have pursued. Whenever Western Sahara is discussed at the United Nations, we firmly support the United Nations Secretary-General and his personal envoy. We are also responsible for co-ordinating the Friends of Western Sahara Group at the United Nations. We therefore have played, and will continue to play, a central role in New York and elsewhere.
Although we are conscious that Western Sahara is inevitably an agenda item on which the United Nations has the lead, we have sought to raise its standing within the European Union. During our presidency of the European Union, we have ensured that Western Sahara regularly features on the agenda at the monthly Maghreb-Mashreq working group meetings in Brussels. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pleased about that. I am sure that many others will be, too.
As a result of one United Kingdom initiative, the European Union heads of mission in Rabat are now permitted to visit Western Sahara to see things for themselves, whereas previously visiting was restricted to junior members of embassy staff. We believe that not only visits but the level of those visits is important. Additionally, we know that many of our European partners do not enjoy the range of information on events in Western Sahara that we possess, so we have circulated comprehensive reports from our ambassador in Rabat.
We were pleased that the United Nations Secretary-General was able to put together a timetable for the run-up to the referendum so quickly, and that MINURSO in Western Sahara was able to recommence the voter identification process at the beginning of December last year. That has continued, with few interruptions.
It is very encouraging to note—I shall come to my hon. Friend's points—that the United Nations Secretary-General's report of 13 April 1998 included the 60,112 applicants identified during the first phase of the identification process, which ran from August 1994 to

December 1995. More than 100,000 have been identified as potential voters, and fewer than 60,000 remain to be convoked.
Since the identification process resumed, British Government officials have made three separate visits to Laayoune in Western Sahara, where MINURSO is based. We also try to visit Tindouf, the Algerian town around which the Polisario camps lie, as often as possible. Unfortunately, the logistical difficulties are such that our last visit to Western Sahara, outside Laayoune, was in September 1997, when officials visited Tindouf, the MINURSO team site at Mehaires and Smara. They travelled from Mehaires through minefields and across the Berm to Smara, and saw for themselves the terrain and conditions that have hindered the work of the United Nations for so long. That is an indication of many of the problems and difficulties resulting from the fighting in the region.
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that British officials are undertaking another visit to Western Sahara at this very moment. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate our gratitude to the United Nations for its assistance with these visits. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that on the ground, through our embassy and other staff, we are active in finding out what the conditions are within Western Sahara.
I also believe that practical demonstrations of support, such as visits, are vital for MINURSO. They not only provide a visible and much appreciated sign of our support, but help us to understand the conditions that it has to work under and the difficulties that it has to face. We are also keen to take every possible opportunity to improve our knowledge and understanding of developments in the territory itself. I know from the many letters we receive in the Foreign Office that there is great interest in the United Kingdom in what is going on in Western Sahara. Indeed, I am delighted to see so many of my hon. Friends in the Chamber for the debate. Yet again, there is not one Opposition Back Bencher here—but we are becoming accustomed to that.
We are told of allegations of human rights abuses, the manipulation of the press, demonstrations and disturbances. The United Nations independent jurist, Professor Rocounas, is engaged in those issues, and we support him in his work. Our regular visits offer us the ideal opportunity to find out from those on the spot what is really happening. I know that those visits are important for MINURSO morale, and they underline, in a practical way, our continuing commitment to the successful resolution of the dispute.
It has been said by some that, if the UN process stalls again, for whatever reason, Morocco would not be too bothered—it would continue to inhabit the towns west of the Berm, much as it has done since the Spanish, and latterly the Mauritanians, withdrew from the territory. I do not believe that that is what the Moroccans want. Nor is it in Morocco's interests for the sovereignty of Western Sahara to remain unresolved. My hon. Friend asked about my recent visit to Morocco. I reassure her that the issue of Western Sahara was a key element in my discussions with the king, the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Our commitment to a resolution of the issue and to the United Nations position was stressed during all those meetings.
There are also some who argue that MINURSO is biased; that it is somehow pro the Polisario and anti-Moroccan. We believe otherwise. MINURSO has proved its value and its integrity, and we shall continue to hold that view unless there is any available evidence to the contrary. At the moment, there is none.
My hon. Friend asked me about the possibility of UK Government contacts with the Polisario. As she knows, I was due to meet the Secretary General of the Polisario, Mohamed Abdelaziz, this morning. I understand that Mr. Abdelaziz is in London for this week. Unfortunately, because of other diary commitments, it was not possible for me to have that meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that it is important that Britain, as a key player in Europe, in the region, at the Security Council and in the Friends of Western Sahara Group in New York, should know what is really happening at this crucial time for Western Sahara. We shall seek that information from all possible sources.
There seems to be some difficulty in arranging meetings with Mohamed Abdelaziz. I understand that my predecessor, Jeremy Hanley, arranged to meet him in north Africa early in 1997, but Mr. Abdelaziz had to pull out of that meeting. We may be fated not to meet. However, I again assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek information from all the key players in the process.
I reiterate to the House our continued determination to see the Western Sahara dispute resolved through the referendum. Britain takes no position on the outcome, and we will not alter that stance. We neither support the Moroccan claim to sovereignty over the territory, nor recognise the Polisario's self-proclaimed Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. Indeed, my hon. Friend would not wish me to take any other position. Her argument is that the matter is one for self-determination by the people. We support the United Nations, and we want to see the dispute resolved peacefully. Morocco and the Polisario have agreed to put the matter to a free vote. We shall do all we can to make sure that there is a vote and that it is free and fair. We shall do all we can to help implement whatever decision the people make.
In February this year, I was pleased to be able to meet the United Nations Secretary-General's newly appointed special representative to Western Sahara, Mr. Charles Dunbar. Mr. Dunbar is a former US ambassador who has worked extensively in the region. I know from reports received that he has been extremely active in his efforts.
He has been admirably and effectively supported by Mr. Robin Kinloch, the British UN staff member who heads the identification commission. My hon. Friend asked about the British role. Robin Kinloch is a key element in the resources that we make available.
I pointed out earlier the progress made on the identification of the non-contested applicants who wish to be assessed as to their qualification as voters in the referendum. As my hon. Friend and others will be aware, there are about 65,000 individuals whose eligibility to submit themselves to MINURSO for interview remains to be confirmed. That is a key issue, to which my hon. Friend referred. Now is not the time or the opportunity for me to go into the problem of the contested tribes in depth. However, in brief, Morocco believes that the members of those tribes should all have the opportunity to submit themselves for identification as voters. The Polisario believes that to do so would be contrary to the Houston agreement. It is clear that both parties see the issue as of paramount importance. We agree that a successful resolution in regard to Western Sahara requires the settlement of the dispute over those tribal groups. If there is any way in which we can assist in that process, we shall be happy to do so.
All applicants in Western Sahara, including those from the contested tribal groups, have been convoked to attend one of the UN identification centres. Those who attend are interviewed by MINURSO staff and representatives of the Polisario and Morocco. Their eligibility for registration is assessed under UN criteria. On the dates on which the 65,000 members of the contested tribes were invited to attend for identification, only 4,000 came forward. Only 1,500 have been interviewed. I regret that the Moroccans have refused to participate in interviewing the remaining 2,500 until they have received satisfactory assurances from the United Nations about how remaining members of those tribes will be dealt with. Charles Dunbar is working hard on that issue, which is crucial to the resolution of the problem, and we shall continue to assist in whatever way we can.
I hope that I have been able to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend, and to assure her that we are active on this matter and are looking for a peaceful solution through the referendum process. If the United Kingdom can assist the UN in any way to resolve this long-standing issue, we will be keen to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising an issue of such importance, and we look forward to the existence of a map of north Africa without this dispute.

Community Hospitals (Oxfordshire)

Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to open a timely debate on the crisis—that is not too strong a word—that affects our health service. Community hospitals are particularly under threat, and not only hospitals but community beds. Abingdon community hospital in my constituency, and the hospitals at Burford, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), at Wantage, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and at Watlington, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), are all at risk. Although none of those right hon. and hon. Members is present, I know that they feel strongly about the potential closures of those hospitals.
The closures faced by the people of Oxfordshire are caused by chronic underfunding of the health service and the acute financial crisis facing the health service this year, both of which are particular problems for Oxfordshire. It would be a false economy—bad not only for patients, but for financial reasons—to close community hospital beds in the way proposed. I plead with the Minister to intervene, even at this stage, because community hospital beds are threatened throughout the country. I ask him to ensure that extra money allocated this year is used not only to provide adequate community services for patients, but to avoid false economies and thereby to release cash for the health service.
The overall funding problem in the NHS has been well stated by the Liberal Democrats over the years. The NHS is chronically underfunded, to the tune of several billion pounds. Government leaks to the press confirm that sort of figure. The Daily Telegraph this morning says that the Department of Health will put in a megabid to the Treasury of around £8 billion. I do not know whether the Government will confirm that figure, but the British Medical Association and others who work in the field recognise that the NHS is chronically underfunded to around that sum.
On top of that, the health service, where the staff have to work hard just to keep it afloat, needs real-terms increases of about 3 per cent. a year to cope with NHS inflation, over and above retail price index rises. The Conservative Government wasted money on bureaucracy and the internal market, but they still managed to average 3.1 per cent. over their period in office, although it came in fits and starts. By adopting Conservative spending plans, the new Government have, sadly, managed real-terms spending increases of only 2.2 per cent. in the NHS budget for England in 1997–98 and 1998–99. That is not sufficient to keep the NHS going without cuts in services. We have seen the pressure on waiting lists. It is not so obvious in community hospitals, where there is no obvious proxy such as waiting list numbers or waiting times, but the pressure is there. It is also on mental health services.
It is fair to say that the Labour manifesto promised a real-terms increase of only 0.1 per cent. or less. However, the Government have revised that upwards, and have claimed that Labour is the only party able to revise its pledges upwards. They have done that not by allocating new money, but by using money initially allocated in other areas, such as the Department of Trade and

Industry's underspend in 1997–98 for the £270 million allocated for winter pressures, and £1.2 billion from the Treasury reserve for this year. That is not new money. It is hard to believe that only a Labour Chancellor would spend that money from the reserve on the health service, while a Liberal Democrat or Conservative Chancellor would merely burn it on a bonfire.
An increase of only 2.2 per cent. is not enough to prevent pressures on waiting lists and other services. At the general election, I made it clear to the people of Oxfordshire, who were already worried about their community hospitals, that the Liberal Democrats would match existing resources, including the reserve and underspends, and, in addition, would give £550 million per year in new money raised by increasing tax revenues.
The extra money from the Government is based on old inflation figures, not the new figures that they found when they took office. In real terms, the money allocated in 1997–98 and—without including the allocation from the reserve, which all parties would have made—for 1998£99 is less than the Conservatives planned. More important, it is less than health authority finance bosses figured would come from a Government elected on the platform that there were "14 days to save the NHS" and "things can only get better". On community hospitals, and on waiting lists, things have only got worse.
It is important to nail the myth that the Government have offered more money than the Liberal Democrats promised at the election. They have offered significantly less. It is embarrassing for the Government that the money for community hospital services and other NHS services is less even than the amount that the Conservatives planned to spend in real terms.
Health authorities such as Oxfordshire face a bill for millennium compliance, for which there is no separate funding allocation. They face initiatives, on pain of sanction, to reduce waiting lists. They face those things with a level of overall increased funding—including the new £500 million announced this year, which is still less than 3 per cent. more in real terms—that is likely to increase waiting times.
Oxfordshire is particularly badly affected, as it is significantly below its target funding. It got a little more than the average allocation, but that was nowhere near the 3 per cent. minimum increase required. All trusts in Oxfordshire are in recovery plan mode, except the community hospital trust, which still faces cuts. As all the trusts face cuts, the health authority cannot be accused of picking on the community hospital trust. It is seeking even bigger cuts from the bigger budgets of the area's acute trusts.
It is hard to say what makes me and the people of Oxford, West and Abingdon more angry. Is it the raised expectations that were dashed after the Government said that "things can only get better"? Is it the stance of Conservative Members, who blame the Government for underfunding the NHS although the Government are merely adopting Conservative spending plans?
Is it premature for the health authority to agree a three-year or four-year funding cut, including closure of community hospitals and community hospital beds, at a time when the new structure of the health authority will, at least in the medium term, move such decisions to primary care groups? They are keen to be given a chance to take a view on whether those cuts should happen, or


whether, when they get the budget in one or two years, time, another way can be found to make the savings that the Government are forcing on them.
Given that Oxfordshire's problems result from the Government's underfunding of the health service, and given that cuts must be made, there is a question of whether those are the most appropriate cuts. They will affect local services that are delivered to people near their homes. Oxfordshire has rural areas, in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Witney, who is now here, in which transport is difficult. The requirement for community hospital beds to be locally available to people and to their general practitioners is vital to better care. The community hospitals uniquely offer what I have called—in a separate debate on community care with the Under-Secretary of State for Health—the three Rs of NHS community care.
The first is rehabilitation, which allows, for patients who need it, enough time for active physiotherapy before they are discharged to home care. Instead, too often, they are discharged to a nursing home or residential home care because there is no time for the active rehabilitation that would enable them to return to their homes. Most patients would rather be at home and, in many cases, although not all, that provides a cheaper package of care for the local social services, particularly if the patients do not have their own funding.
The second of the three Rs is recuperation. It is vital that patients are given a chance to recuperate from operations or acute emergency admissions—perhaps for serious illnesses such as pneumonia—in their own time. If they are rushed back into the community, an extra work load is placed on community services, which are already underfunded. When patients are discharged from acute hospitals too early and a community hospital is not available to help them recover in their own time, the work load falls on social services. Alternatively—this is just as bad—the acute hospital cannot discharge the patient because of the lack of services available to pick up the care. That causes an increase in delayed discharges, which are already high in Oxfordshire. A lack of recuperation beds is not only bad for patients: it is financially bad.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, we have three community hospitals? The first, at Burford, certainly faces closure under Oxfordshire health authority's plan. The second faces a 25 per cent. cut in the number of beds and the third faces further cuts. Thus, all three hospitals face either closure or dramatic cuts in beds. In the light of what my hon. Friend has been saying, does he feel that savings could be made by reducing the huge number of trusts in Oxfordshire to free up funds that would prevent dramatic cuts, not only in my constituency but in his and others in Oxfordshire?

Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that I am his hon. Friend only in that I seek to preserve community services. Given the Conservative funding that undermined the health service before the current cuts, I could not describe myself as his friend.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that his constituency hospitals are particularly badly hit, although the scale of the underfunding in Oxfordshire is such that

even radical trust mergers would not release sufficient management savings to provide the necessary funding to preserve those hospitals. That approach could be considered, however, as Oxfordshire has too many trusts. The Liberal Democrats have never opposed trust mergers. We feel that the issue of losing separate trust status is far less important than the loss of services.
The third R that community hospitals provide for local patients is respite care. If community beds are cut, patients will have less opportunity for respite care. That could mean extra admissions to acute hospitals when patients and their carers cannot cope at home for long periods. General practitioners use community hospitals as an alternative to acute hospital admission. The Government have considered it useful to fund that with their "winter pressures" money, with hospital-at-home schemes as an alternative to admission. I would argue that community hospitals are large-scale hospital-at-home schemes and are an alternative to expensive or inappropriate acute hospital admission.
Social services in Oxfordshire are badly affected by Government spending cuts. They have not benefited from a release from the reserve or from special money. I remind the Minister that the total social services standard spending assessment has, according to House of Commons Library figures, been cut by 1.4 per cent. in real terms in 1997–98 and by 1.1 per cent. in real terms in 1998–99, even before demographic pressures are taken into account.
Social services are simply unable to take up the extra work load that will be put on them as a result of hospital closures and reductions in community hospital beds. Therefore, I fear that the biggest work load will fall on acute hospitals. As has been predicted not only by me but by Lord Walton of Detchant, a local resident of Oxfordshire and an acknowledged expert on those matters, there will be a massive increase in delayed discharges and in admissions to hospital of people who could otherwise be managed at home or in a community hospital.
That makes no financial sense, because it is twice as expensive to keep people in acute hospital beds than it is to look after them in community hospital beds. It is certainly more expensive to the state to send patients without their own funding to a social services-funded nursing home than it would be, in the long term, to give them the rehabilitation that they may need in a community hospital.
As the matter is still out to consultation, I understand that the Minister will not be able to give his view, or even his likely view, on his decision on the proposal to close those community hospitals and beds. However, does he consider it reasonable for the local health authority and the NHS regional office to look carefully at whether the extra £65 million announced nationally, specifically for community and mental health services out of the extra £500 million announced for the NHS this year could be used profitably as a cash-releasing measure to avoid the false economy of increasing the number of delayed discharges? If he looks, as I suspect that he will have to in due course when the measure comes before him, at the consultation document issued by the health authority, he will notice that that question is not even addressed.
The question of whether the number of delayed discharges and admissions of patients who would otherwise be treated in community hospitals would increase was glossed over in the section on the effects on other acute trusts. Already, we read in the local newspapers today and yesterday that the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust must close wards because it cannot provide enough staff to keep them open. Will it not result in double trouble for the Government's waiting list initiative if wards are closed to new admissions not only because of staff shortages but because of delayed discharges?
There is a good case for allocating the money given to the Oxford and Anglia region not on a weighted capitation allocation basis—that would be an unthinking way of proceeding—but as a cash-releasing measure to provide the resources that Oxfordshire needs to expand its services so that local people begin to see improvements. The Oxfordshire social services settlement suffered not only from an overall real-terms cut in the past two years, despite increased demography, but from a savage cut of 10 per cent. in its SSA for elderly residential care because of formula changes.
No reasonable explanation has been given to Oxfordshire county council why the Labour Government think that it suddenly costs 10 per cent. less to keep elderly people in residential accommodation. It is also hard to understand how local social services, which interlink crucially with community hospitals, can be rescued from such a huge cut in their resources.
Oxfordshire has suffered particularly badly under the Government's spending plans, which owe much to those that they adopted—unnecessarily, the Liberal Democrats believe—after the last election. There is therefore a strong case for providing the limited extra money that the Government allocated to Oxford and Anglia regional health authority to Oxfordshire health authority specifically to avoid cuts in community hospitals and in mental health services in Oxfordshire. Otherwise, those cuts will be bad, not only for the finances of the health authority, but for patients across Oxfordshire.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, as community hospitals can be a valuable part of the local health service in many parts of the country. I know that there are real concerns not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) about the health authority's proposals.
I should say at the outset that there is no single national blueprint for the configuration of services that will suit all localities. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, all localities are different and, in some cases, community hospitals may not be the best way of delivering local services. It is the job of health authorities and NHS trusts to ensure that local services are matched to local need.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the Government's position on the future of Oxfordshire's community hospitals. If a local community health council objects to the health authority's proposals, the matters will be referred to Ministers. Until then, we must remain impartial about any future decision.
The public consultation on the proposals to reshape community services in the county began on 4 April. Public meetings have now been held in all 11 towns that

have community hospitals. I understand that the health authority has circulated more than 5,000 consultation documents and 10,000 summary documents. I urge all hon. Members and members of the public who are concerned about the issue to submit their views to the health authority. The whole point of having a consultation is for the health authority to ascertain the views of local people and interested parties. I can tell the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Witney that, if the issue is referred to Ministers, we shall listen carefully to what they and local people have to say.
Two options are being considered by the health authority and the NHS trust. Both options would mean that the 12-bed hospital at Bicester would be replaced by a new 30-bed hospital and a new minor injuries unit would be developed for Witney. To achieve that, the first option would involve closing Burford and Watlington hospitals and reducing the number of beds at five of the other community hospitals. The second option would also involve closing Burford hospital, and the wards and day hospital at Wallingford, and reducing the number of beds at four of the other community hospitals. Under that proposal, a new day hospital would be developed at Didcot, and there would be an increase in beds at Watlington. The health authority claims that, with both options, the aim is to reduce bed numbers in areas where there is relatively generous provision and to increase bed numbers where there is a greater need.
Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the pros and cons of the options while the consultation is still going on.

Mr. Woodward: The Minister said that both options include the proposal to close Burford hospital. It may help him to know that the hospital has an average annual occupancy of over 90 per cent. If Burford were to close, the nearest available community hospital would be at Witney, which has 61 beds. It is proposed to close about 25 per cent. of the beds at Witney. When I was there a few weeks ago, there was only one empty bed, and the hospital's average occupancy was also over 90 per cent. As the acute hospital, John Radcliffe, has spent many months of this year on red alert, not only will be there be no community bed provision, but there will be no acute bed provision. That makes nonsense of the NHS White Paper's support for local provision, because there will be no provision for such patients in west Oxfordshire.

Mr. Milburn: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if the health authority's proposals come to Ministers, they will of course be judged in the context of the White Paper. However, I understand that the health authority claims that the proposals, which are fully supported by the community health trust, aim to tackle fairness of access to services. Our White Paper clearly states that there should be an end to unfairness and that high standards should be available to all patients. I expect that the hon. Members for Witney and for Oxford, West and Abingdon would support that principle. I understand that, even without any financial pressures, the health authority and the NHS trust believe that change would have to be made to ensure a fairer distribution of health care in the county.
The health authority has stated that there are considerably more community hospital beds for people aged over 65 in the south and west of the county than in the north. Clearly, those are difficult issues, which will


need to be considered carefully. As I said, they will be considered within the policy context of our White Paper, "The New NHS". There is no doubt that community hospitals will be part of our vision for the NHS. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon rightly said, nobody benefits if people are admitted to hospital unnecessarily or are kept in acute hospitals longer than necessary. Waiting lists get longer and hospital services become stretched to the limit.
Much work is being done to provide imaginative alternatives to traditional rehabilitation and recuperation services which meet patients' needs. However, we need to ensure that access to such services is dependent not on where patients live but on meeting their needs. Again, if proposals come to Ministers, we shall judge them in the context of that principle.
We currently do not have enough evidence to stipulate whether intermediate care should be provided through community hospitals or in the patient's home. There is a need for better evaluation as models of care develop. In particular, the health authority will need to consider how community hospitals best fit in with acute hospitals and other community facilities to ensure the best balance of emergency, planned and rehabilitation care.

Dr. Peter Brand: The Minister has highlighted the national importance of having a policy for community hospitals. Would it not would be a great shame if the hospitals that he has mentioned—which I visited recently—were to close and the opportunity to use the set-up in Oxfordshire as a national pilot for a more integrated health service were lost?

Mr. Milburn: As I said, first, there is no uniform community hospital and, secondly, local needs vary according to local circumstances. That is why the health authority and the NHS trusts concerned must be clear about the relationship between community hospitals, acute care, primary care and other NHS services. That is for the health authority to determine following consultation. There is no single national blueprint. If we tried to impose one, the national health service would not best meet local patients' needs, and we want to avoid that result at all costs.
No part of the national health service stands alone. Clinicians, other members of staff and, increasingly, patients have reached that understanding over the past few years. The NHS is an interconnected system. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is right, and we want more integrated forms of care in future so that patients who need access to hospital services, and, equally, to primary care, rehabilitation and social services, have a greater continuum of care than in the past. In some parts of the country, community hospitals will provide a vital role in providing that form of integrated care, but that is a matter for local determination.
That brings me—sadly, because the debate had been going well—to money. I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the Liberal Democrats

are playing a tired old record. Time and again, we hear fantasy figures conjured out of thin air. The facts are straightforward: the Government have allocated an extra £2,000 million to the national health service on top of the allocations planned by the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support for that proposition from the Liberal Democrat Benches, where there is at last a glimmer of reality.
I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that it is important that all hon. Members remember what we promised the electorate at the general election. We promised real-terms increases in funding for the national health service, and we are delivering them. The Liberal Democrats promised increased investment of £540 million per annum. That was generous, but we have doubled that. Now the hon. Gentleman is crying crocodile tears and trying to leapfrog the Government's additional investment in the NHS.
I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that Oxfordshire has particular problems. That is why we have allocated an extra £2.8 million to help with the strategic changes taking place in the county. That is why more money was given to Oxfordshire to help with winter pressures than to any other county in the region. That is why, since we came to power on 1 May last year, we have allocated to the health service in the county £20 million more than the previous Government were planning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Dr. Harris: It is necessary to point out, for the record, that the cheers for the Minister's statement came from Labour Members—including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—sitting in Liberal Democrat seats, who are queueing for Gallery tickets. Clearly, the Liberal Democrats would spend more in real terms than the Government, and for the Government to ignore inflation is to ignore reality for patients in Oxfordshire.
Finally, does the Minister agree that it would not be unreasonable for the local NHS executive to make specific cash releasing allocations of extra money to prevent false economies?

Mr. Milburn: That is an extremely good point. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, £65 million was made available for the waiting list initiative and to improve primary, community, mental health and social services. I expect that the region will take account of local circumstances in determining how best to allocate that money for the maximum benefit of patients.
We all want a modern national health service. There is no doubt that community hospitals will have a role to play in some areas. If the matter comes before Ministers, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Multinational Companies (Business Practices)

Mr. Michael Clapham: What discussions she has had with United Kingdom-based multinationals about their business practices in relation to overseas projects. [42497]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have had many discussions with multinational companies about their investment and trading practices. We have discussed the growing ethical consumer movements, and their focus on core labour and environmental standards.
I have also discussed the welcome support of the major pharmaceutical companies for the roll back malaria initiative. I have had many discussions on the interest of developing countries in attracting beneficial investments, and the interest of companies in supporting development. My Department is consulting widely with the private sector on how we can be best work together to promote those objectives.

Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I tell her that on 13 May, the day on which Rio Tinto, the largest mining company in the world, held its annual general meeting, the International Union of Chemical, Energy and General Workers published a booklet entitled "Rio Tinto: Tainted Titan", and held a stakeholders' meeting to draw attention to the fact that the company had shown disregard for human rights and for the environment? I agree that it is now addressing those issues, but will my right hon. Friend continue to press to ensure that multinational companies exercise the best practices and have regard for human rights and for the environment?

Clare Short: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but there is definitely a new mood among multinational companies. They are seeking meetings with my Department and, one by one, they are making commitments to human rights and to monitoring their performance overseas. There is a real sea change, and if we encourage that, we could improve standards of protection of the environment and core labour standards across the world. It is an important opportunity.
Rio Tinto had a bad reputation, but it seems to be working to change. I recently gave out the World Aware awards, and the company won one. I was visited by missionaries who had been working in the Philippines and who were critical of the company's record. I arranged that they should meet, but, apparently, Rio Tinto is not in the Philippines any more. All of us, including my hon. Friend, should meet Rio Tinto and get behind those improvements in performance, because they are beneficial to everyone.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Can the Secretary of State confirm that her conversations also cover behaviour such as marketing vigorously in overseas

countries goods that have been banned or found to be dangerous in this country? Will she look at the record of the tobacco companies that flog cigarettes vigorously overseas as they are unable to flog them here, because we understand the dangers? Will she also consider countries that still promote tinned and powdered milk, when everyone believes that maternal milk is infinitely better for children?

Clare Short: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to look at any issue, but I do not pretend to have invincible power to cause multinational capital suddenly to take on the standards that he advocates. We have all been campaigning to get rid of irresponsible baby milk advertising, which is so destructive. I confess that I have never looked into the tobacco issue in detail, but I am aware of it from press coverage. I will take a look at it.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of Adair Turner, from the Confederation of British Industry, in favour of international action to combat bribery in international trade? That is a change of position for the CBI. Given my right hon. Friend's support in the White Paper for action to implement the convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on combating international bribery, will she or her Government colleagues be introducing legislation to tackle the problem?

Clare Short: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. We have a great opportunity, because the OECD has called for companies from industrialised countries to clean up their act, for Governments to cease the practice of allowing bribes in overseas countries to be tax-deductible—it is disgraceful that they ever were tax-deductible—and for it to be made a crime to offer a bribe to a public official overseas. I am keen for Britain and other countries to embrace this opportunity, especially when Governments of developing countries, particularly in Africa, are giving a lead and are taking steps at home. There is no doubt that corruption hurts the poor. We are considering legislation, and I am hopeful that Britain will take a lead.

Sudan

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on the current provision of aid to Sudan. [42499]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid programmes to the people of southern Sudan. [42500]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am happy to say that, since my statement to the House on 28 April, the Government of Sudan, partly due to the pressure of international public opinion, have gradually improved access to the worst-affected areas, particularly in Bahr El Ghazal. I approved further British contributions during May totalling £6.23 million, which brings our overall assistance to Sudan since February to £10.23 million. The European Union General Affairs Council on 25 May


again called for a ceasefire for humanitarian purposes, which remains the most urgent requirement. Unfortunately, the Sudan People's Liberation Army has refused to consider that request. A recent mission by an official of my Department reported that access remained a problem, despite the fact that we had been given assurances that it was now adequate, and that feeding standards for children were too low and were below international standards.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is self-evident that the problems of delivering aid to southern Sudan are politically complex. The Secretary of State has been bedevilled by the problem of access. In today's edition of The Times, she rehearses some of her worries about fundraising by aid agencies, particularly the Red Cross. Will she confirm that her reported remarks should not be interpreted as the Government saying that fundraising is not necessary to deliver help to the needy of southern Sudan?

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that no one should believe what they read in The Times. The little man involved wanted to put an aggressive slant on an important issue of public discussion. The truth is that Sudan does not need public appeals. I have guaranteed that funds would be provided, and so did other Governments. The problem is complex. We must be able to provide the money rapidly and get the food delivered when we have the opportunity. There is no shortage of resources for food, but the international community must continue to put pressure on the Government of Sudan—it has already had some effect—and on the southern factions. Ideally, there should be a ceasefire so that a trainload of food can get to everyone who needs it in that large area.
Many of the non-governmental organisations are doing wonderful work on the ground delivering food to the people. I regret the public appeal. The NGOs were divided in their view, because such appeals confuse the message about the nature of the problem. Good people in our country think that there is a shortage of money. That is not the problem: it is the politicians on both sides of the conflict who deliberately prevent access and cause people to starve.

Mr. Winterton: Although I accept that more food is needed for the very deprived people of Sudan, especially southern Sudan, and that access is one of the main causes of the delay in getting the food to them, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is the continuing civil war between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army that has created the major elements of the problem. What fresh initiatives will be taken to bring both parties in the civil war to the table and to negotiate the establishment of a forum or agency that can bring the suffering of these extraordinary people to an end? We are all impressed by the passive way in which they are prepared to accept their lot.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it is a humanitarian disaster. Many such disasters have already occurred, and more will come.
This disaster is a direct result of the war. The area where the famine is has been fought over by a faction that changed sides; consequently, people have been displaced and crops uprooted. The famine has been compounded by

the fact that the Sudan Government would not allow us access, and by the fact that, now that they have, the southern factions will not allow a ceasefire. It is our duty to provide humanitarian relief, but we shall not solve the problem in that way.
We have done our best to send a message during the crisis—a message from all the people of the world who are concerned. The Sudan Government changed their position: they allowed more access and offered a ceasefire. The southern factions, however, have not responded. Following my statement in the House, we put pressure on both sides in our European Union presidency role. The Governments of the surrounding countries—comprising the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, or IGAD—are trying to broker peace talks; the last round did not lead far, but further talks will take place in July or August, hosted by Johannes Pronk, the Netherlands Minister for Development Co-operation.
The whole international community must put pressure on both sides. No side can win the war by fighting: if the fighting continues, the people of Sudan will continue to suffer. We must do all we can to call for a ceasefire and a reasonable settlement.

Ann Clwyd: There seems to be a difference of opinion about whether money is needed. The United Nations said today that it needed US$109 million to deal immediately with the humanitarian crisis. As Governments have committed only 20 per cent. of that so far, and as only 7.2 per cent. has been paid, there is clearly a shortage of money. Can we do anything to help?

Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no problem of money or food. The trouble is that, in the humanitarian aid business, there is competition over who is in the headlines and who is raising the money, and that gets in the way of the true message. Operation Lifeline Sudan—which, as my hon. Friend knows, is headed by the United Nations—tells us that the Sudan Government have improved access, and that there is enough food. As I have said, an official from my Department has come back and told us that that view is too optimistic, but, as I have also said, we will continue to provide the necessary funds. The EU is about to disburse a considerable amount.
I insist on this point first because it is true, but also because we must not muddle the message to the public. I ask the public to use all their influence to put pressure for a ceasefire on both sides. We will deliver the money: there is no shortage of money, and anyone who suggests that there is misleads the public.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We understand that there is no shortage of money in some places. However, although I agree that the Sudan People's Liberation Army ought to call a ceasefire, does the Secretary of State not accept that, at a time when the National Islamic Front, with its cohorts, invades four counties containing about 2 million people—scattering and butchering them in an attempt to maintain control of an area that may produce oil—there is something wrong with the balance, given that it claims that it is giving humanitarian aid on the airstrips?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Sudan Government have done many undesirable


things, but deep, dreadful and monstrous wrongs have been done by all sides in the civil war. I do not think that anyone should line up with one side or the other. The people of Sudan desperately need a ceasefire and a peace settlement, securing the rights of people in all parts of the country. No one will win through the war; the suffering will go on, and those with any feeling for any of the people of Sudan must use all their influence to secure peace.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to The Guardian for its recent campaign relating to the crippling problems of the poorest countries on the planet—including Sudan—under the slogan "the new slavery"? Does she agree that finding new and better ways in which to bring effective help to the 1.3 billion people throughout the world, including Sudan, who live in abject poverty—including the redemption of debt, albeit linked to good governance—is one of the biggest issues facing politicians in the developed world? Have we not a Christian duty to do all we can?

Clare Short: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I welcome his promotion to this important portfolio. I hope that he will forgive me for paying tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad), whose commitment to the cause of international development was sincere and deep. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that, however big his commitment, it could not be any greater than the right hon. Gentleman's. I agree that there is a moral duty on people of all moralities and religions to give the poor of the world a chance to climb out of their poverty. Our people have an interest in reducing inequality, division and instability because they are dangerous for everyone. As I have said before, this is the most noble cause in politics, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman to it.

Mr. Streeter: In view of the critical reaction of several leading agencies to the Secretary of State's remarks on Thursday about the use of shocking images to attract public interest to events in Sudan and to other tragedies, in the light of recent figures which show that the British public are certainly not suffering from compassion fatigue, and in the light of the confusion that has been caused by her remarks, would she take this opportunity to reconsider them?

Clare Short: No, I would not. The hon. Gentleman should not believe misleading accounts in The Times or in other newspapers. The issue is enormously important, and there was no need for a public appeal for funds for Sudan. There was a big division among NGOs about whether there should be one, and most of them joined together in a group appeal. First, many of them took the view that a public appeal would confuse the message to the public about the cause of the suffering in Sudan and about how public opinion could be used to try to get some relief for the people of Sudan.
Secondly, I have referred to a book by Richard Jolly, who is a great development academic. He used to be with the United Nations Children's Fund, and now edits the United Nations Development Programme report. There is compassion fatigue in the industrialised countries at a

time when it is apparent that more development has been achieved over the past 50 years than ever before. It is undermining the commitment of Governments to development and confusing the public.
Appeals that use constant images of famine and failure are helping to feed a compassion fatigue that is reflected in reduced commitment and spend by Governments. It is a real issue, and I am making a speech to the media this afternoon about how we might do better. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of that. Many NGOs agree that we must try to do better.

Sierra Leone

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What aid has been given to Sierra Leone during 1998. [42501]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since the return of President Kabbah's democratically elected Government, we have provided £1 million to re-establish core functions and services to enable the Government to be up and running; £1 million for non-governmental organisations delivering humanitarian and development assistance and £1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to enable it to continue its humanitarian aid and protection work. The European Union is providing 2 million ecu for seeds and tools, and 200,000 ecu to help refugees in Guinea to return home. We are looking at what more we can do to strengthen governance and bring immediate relief to the people. We hope in future to be able to assist in demobilising and reintegrating ex-combatants.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that full and helpful answer. All hon. Members welcome the giving of humanitarian aid where it is greatly needed. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that none of her officials knew of or supported the activities of Sandline International in breaking the Government's embargo on Sierra Leone?

Clare Short: I can give the hon. Lady that absolute assurance. Beyond that, as she knows, an inquiry is taking place into the matter. The proper, democratically elected Government have been restored. The coup in Sierra Leone was vicious and brutal; a set of people went around chopping off the arms and legs of children. It is good for humanity that that is over. The paradox of the return is that it was led by the Nigerians, which means that an undemocratic Government helped to restore a democratic one. That is the biggest irony. The details of the Sandline operations will be resolved by the current inquiry, but my Department has no engagement whatever.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Now that there is a legitimate regime in Sierra Leone, does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than waiting for the millennium and the Jubilee 2000 appeal to apply to every poor country, a group of nations, perhaps under EU leadership, could use debt relief in some poor test countries to determine the effectiveness of offering the remission of debts? It would be on the basis that those countries passed the money to the poor and not into some rich, elite pockets.

Clare Short: That is exactly what we are doing. Forty-one countries are on the list of highly indebted


countries, with unsustainable debt affecting their capacity to deliver services to their people. A formula has been agreed by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. I refer to debt to multinationals, not commercial debt; that is a confusion in some of the debate.
About 20 of those countries will qualify, if we can do better on post-conflict countries, which include Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Liberia, but debt relief is only part of the answer. The problem is poverty. Some countries have poverty without debt: some countries with debt are not interested in the poor. Giving debt relief within the context of supporting Governments who want to eradicate poverty and to provide for human development is what we are doing and will continue to do.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in Sierra Leone last year, aid was reduced as part of the political pressure to oust the junta, yet, as in the case of Sudan, arms continued to flow into the country? Does she agree that, although humanitarian aid must never be reduced to the poorest people in the world, because poverty leads to conflict, which leads to poverty, we must also look at the supply of arms to those countries? It is only by the prevention of conflict that we shall ultimately solve the problem of the poor.

Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady's second point, but we did not reduce humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone to put pressure on the coup leaders. I personally met my officials and supervised everything we did on that. That allegation has been made by one NGO, and it just is not so; some of my officials have written to it on the matter. There was real trouble getting resources in without feeding the fighters. That is always a serious problem, but, through NGOs and the Red Cross, we put in as much relief as we could get through to people. We also funded a radio station so that people could gain access to the truth. We funded many refugees and prepared the Government to return. We did not cut resources to hurt people.
On the wider question of the feeding of conflict by access to arms, the hon. Lady is right. Oxfam and others have launched an important campaign on small arms. Africa is littered with them. They feed fighting in very poor countries, where having a weapon makes people strong and means that they can get resources that others cannot. Sadly, much of the ammunition is manufactured in Africa, so it is not a question just of imports, but we must do better. Conflict is breaking out in the poorest countries and impoverishing them further.

Drought and Famine

Mr. Barry Jones: What extra moneys she has earmarked to combat drought and famine since 1 May; and if she will make a statement. [42502]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have a contingency reserve that is set aside for emergencies and funds can also be allocated from country programme budgets. I assure my hon. Friend that we give the highest priority to ensuring that adequate resources are made available very quickly for humanitarian emergencies. Since 1 May this year, we have pledged £6.23 million for the emergency in the Sudan.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and for his efforts as a Minister. Is it his view that, in the

Sudan, there is a shortage of food for people who are hungry, or that the hungry cannot get access to the food that is there? Has he any further advice to the Red Cross as to how it conducts its campaigns for money for people who are hungry and poor?

Mr. Foulkes: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have already agreed more than £10 million to the Sudan. The problem is not money. Even the Disasters Emergency Committee was divided when it considered whether to have an appeal for the Sudan. My right hon. Friend has done the country and this issue a service by opening up the debate. The media sometimes seem obsessed with disasters. If it bleeds, it leads, in some media. That means that we do not get the positive message over of some of the success of the development work that we and other countries have been doing.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given the Minister's undoubted commitment to the principle of humanitarian aid, will he tell the House whether his Department was consulted about clause 63 of the Finance Bill, and what effects he and his Department believe clause 63 will have on the provision of overseas aid by British charities?

Mr. Foulkes: Departments are consulted regularly about matters that affect them. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the arrangements he has made for tax relief for people who are willing to give money to charities, which has been a great boost for them. That is the kind of issue he should be raising, rather than quibbling about that particular clause.

Debt Reduction

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What action her Department intends to take to assist in the reduction of the debt burden of countries that do not qualify under the terms of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative because of recent conflict. [42503]

Fiona Mactaggart: What progress has been made in reducing the indebtedness of countries that do not qualify for the heavily indebted poor countries initiative because they have recently come out of conflict; and if she will make a statement. [42507]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Following a British initiative, the G8 summit agreed on the need to look at ways in which to provide more and earlier debt relief to help heavily indebted post-conflict countries, such as Rwanda and Liberia. Special arrangements are needed because, by definition, they lack a track record of good economic management, having come out of war and crisis. We are working to implement this and, in the case of Rwanda, the UK has made a substantial pledge to the debt trust fund for Rwanda at the donors meeting which is taking place in Stockholm.

Mrs. Heal: Will my right hon. Friend—who is aware of the particular problems of those countries—do all she can to urge the international community to respond to their exceptional needs as they try to rebuild their


political, economic and social systems? She will know of the many organisations linked with Jubilee 2000, and of the concerns of the British Medical Association about the impact that debt has on the health of those countries.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. In Birmingham, I met lots of people who came—with enormous dignity and good spirits—to call for help with debt relief. Rwanda is coming out of bitterness and pain after surviving genocide, when the world let it down and failed to intervene, and it has a Government who are trying to do the right things. If we do not assist the Government in bringing relief to the country—Rwanda is one of the poorest countries in the world—the chance of it returning to conflict is great. It is in everyone's interests that we make greater progress and are not rigid about the formula, thus excluding post-conflict countries.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was pleased to hear that part of the Secretary of State's response which suggested that we would be able to make a contribution to Rwanda's being able to meet its current debt. Does she accept that many of the countries of the poorer world find it unfair that the international mechanism seems to be a one-way street? The UN did not deliver protection from genocide in Rwanda, yet countries are expected to fit in with incredibly stiff recommendations in terms of meeting debt relief proposals. Will she work to try to make sure that, within debt relief programmes, the future prospects and accountability of a country are taken into account, as well as its history?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend, as did Kofi Annan and all serious observers, that the international community badly let down Rwanda. We are committed by convention, following the holocaust in Europe, always to intervene to prevent genocide. We failed to do so, and we pulled out UN troops. There was systematic, organised slaughter, and we should never forgive ourselves for that. I do not fully agree that, in all cases, the debt owed to the IMF, to the World bank and for export credits is unfairly imposed. In some cases, bad Governments have been replaced by good Governments, and they need help. Borrowing is not always bad. If it is borrowing for good investment, it is desirable. We need good Governments to get out from the overhang of bad debt so that they can build their economies for the future.

Mr. Gary Streeter: No one doubts the personal commitment of the Secretary of State to debt redemption. However, she will be aware of the widespread disappointment and anger at the abject failure of the recent G8 summit to take the matter forward. Can she confirm that the Government remain committed to giving a lead in relation to debt redemption, albeit linked to good governance? Will she continue to seek to persuade leaders of other creditor nations to do exactly the same?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers—he should have read the communiqué produced at the summit. The truth is that, shortly after forming our Government, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a speech calling for speeding up of the implementation of the HIPC initiative, and for three quarters of eligible countries to be untrapped

by 2000. Immediately after the general election, in a meeting with the World bank and the IMF, we could not reach agreement on the initiative. We now have the support of all the major countries. Partly because of pressure by those good people demonstrating on the streets of Birmingham, implementation of the initiative is being speeded up. We need now to make more progress in dealing with the debt problems of post-conflict countries, which will be a complex matter. However, for some of the poorest countries, the problem is not debt. We have to act on poverty and on good governance—which includes dealing with debt, but not only with that.

Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that, if the United Kingdom writes off a country's debts, we shall not make further loans out of taxpayers' money to that country? Otherwise, in 10 years' time, we might be faced with the same problem. When help is needed, is it not better to provide it as aid rather than as loans that will not be repaid?

Clare Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the initiative is not only British, but international; that the issue encompasses export credits to many countries, IMF debt and World bank debt; and that the initiative provides relief only to countries that adopt good economic management to improve their economy and benefit poor people in their country. Countries must have a track record of such economic management both before and after they sign on for debt relief. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no country will receive debt relief unless it is being very responsible in its economic management. I give him that complete assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today. I have also sent a message of condolence to the people and Government of Germany about the appalling rail tragedy earlier today.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when we were in opposition, we used to groan at the fawning, obsequious, softball, well-rehearsed and planted questions asked by Conservative Members of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)? Will my right hon. Friend distinguish his period in office by discouraging such practices—which diminish Prime Minister's Question Time—during this Parliament? Furthermore, in view of the rather depleted official Opposition, will he encourage rather than discourage—


without fear or favour, and without showing partiality or affection—loyal Labour Back Benchers who wish to seek and provide scrutiny and accountability in this place?

The Prime Minister: I fully respect my hon. Friend's independence of mind, and shall do my very best to ensure that he retains it.

Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I say that we wish to associate ourselves entirely with the Prime Minister's remarks on the tragedy in Germany?
In the new and highly welcome atmosphere of reconciliation in Northern Ireland, would it not now be appropriate for the Government to review as a matter of urgency the prison sentences of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright?

The Prime Minister: That review is being conducted. I should not say anything about it, as it is being conducted in a quasi-judicial capacity by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, I understand the concern that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and many others. I am sure that it is shared on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hague: We all understand that the cases are difficult, and I know that the Prime Minister understands the immense difficulties faced by our armed forces in Northern Ireland and the terrible pressures on soldiers, which can sometimes result in tragic incidents. I hope that he will ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to re-examine the matter, and to bring forward the review of the cases, which are causing growing public concern.

The Prime Minister: First, I give my warmest congratulations on the work that they do to our armed forces in Northern Ireland and to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In respect of the particular case, there was a court case which concluded on Friday 22 May; before that court case was concluded, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not able to conduct her own review. Now that it is out of the way, she will do that, and do so as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Hutton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the past 12 months, the Government have given the go-ahead for the construction of 30 new hospitals—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those hospitals amount to the biggest programme of modernisation and renewal in the history of the national health service. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the construction of those new hospitals is not only an excellent way to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the national health service, but provides further evidence that Labour Governments are always good news—[Interruption.]—for the national health service?

The Prime Minister: I fully concur with that. It is no surprise that Conservative Members do not like it, because they promised those new hospitals, but never built a single

one. It is this Government who are building 30 new hospitals, six of them already under way, and spending a further £2 billion in the health service.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, one, the efforts of the international community so far to persuade President Milosevic to exercise some restraint in Kosovo have had no visible effect; two, that the situation in the province is now speedily deteriorating; and, three, that in these matters it is far, far better to take strong, preventive action early than to wait until one is left with doing too little, too late?

The Prime Minister: I agree with that. The first meeting of the working group, which was convened in part by Britain, took place a few weeks ago; and, subsequent to that, a series of further meetings have taken place. In addition, Mr. Rugova is now in Washington and has met President Clinton; there will be an attempt to have further dialogue between him and Mr. Milosevic. I want to make it very clear that we are watching the situation in Kosovo extremely carefully. We believe that we cannot afford to have an extension of violence and disorder there—[Interruption.] Before, in a similar situation nearby, the international community acted with great firmness, and we must make sure that we do the same again. In answer to the question from the Opposition Benches, "Why bother?" we bother because disorder in that part of the world would have a huge impact on all of us, including this country.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister draws a parallel with Bosnia and is right to do so, but may I remind him that it was during the previous United Kingdom presidency in 1992 that we missed the decisive opportunity to act early in Bosnia? As the current President of the EU, will he consider these three actions: one, to reinforce the United Nations troops on the Macedonian border; two, to deploy a screening force from NATO on the Albanian border; and, three, to make it absolutely clear to President Milosevic that if he should act in gross contravention of international human rights and with the effect of destabilising the nations in the area, the international community will regard that as an act in violation of international law?

The Prime Minister: In respect of the specific action that we will take, I have already said, and will repeat, that we do not believe that we could afford to have disorder spreading in that part of the world. I hope that that is a sufficiently clear message to Mr. Milosevic.
In respect of the measures for which the right hon. Gentleman asked, he may like to know that Ministers have already commissioned military advice on support for United Nations and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitoring activity, as well as NATO preventive deployments in that region; we are looking very carefully at what we need to do. There are certain discussions currently going on between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Rugova, and we are watching very carefully. Again, I make it clear that we do not believe that it could be in the interests of our country or of the world community to allow a similar situation to develop there as developed in Bosnia.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the profits announced


by Camelot, which amount to more than £1.5 million a week, are excessive, and that we ought to ensure that the next company chosen does not profit out of good causes? At the end of the day, the people who have lost by more than £1.5 million a week are the beneficiaries throughout the regions. Would not a fairer spread of lottery money throughout the regions he better?

The Prime Minister: We are committed to seeking an efficient, not-for-profit operator, and we want to maximise the money available for good causes. The National Lottery Bill will create the new opportunities fund, which will fund school clubs, information technology training for teachers and librarians, and healthy living centres, as well as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, we will be able to get more money for good causes that would otherwise not be funded from public spending. As I say, we are committed to seeking an efficient, not-for-profit operator.

Mr. James Gray: The number of people on hospital waiting lists in Wiltshire has increased by 1,911 since Labour came to power this time last year. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that now is a particularly unfortunate time for ward closures, such as that planned for the Cameron ward for the mentally ill in Chippenham and other similar wards in Trowbridge and Warminster? Will he join me in supporting the group that is opposing those ward closures? If he will not, will he accept that those closures are symptomatic of new Labour's approach to the health service?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that at all. We are spending some £2 billion more than the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, spent on the national health service. What is more, the waiting list pledge that we made, we will meet—as we said that we would. When we meet it, it will be the first time in years that waiting lists have come down. They will come down under a Labour Government, having risen year on year on year under the Tories.

Mr. Roger Stott: It is normal to preface a question, "Is my right hon. Friend aware". May I turn that round to say that my right hon. Friend is probably not aware that I spent the week leading up to the referendum in Northern Ireland in Derry, knocking on doors and persuading people to vote yes to the agreement? That agreement has been solidified by the votes of the people in both the north and the south of Ireland. As this is the first Prime Minister's Question Time since the result of the referendum, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend for putting in so much work to achieve that decision?

The Prime Minister: I should like to thank all the political leaders who did a lot to secure a yes vote in that referendum. That vote was a vote for the future in Northern Ireland; it was a vote to give the children of Northern Ireland a better future than that of their parents. I hope very much that the efforts of everyone will go to make the agreement work. We now have a set of structures and principles that can give Northern Ireland

the future it needs. I hope that everyone there accepts the democratic will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland and makes this work for the future.

Mr. Damian Green: The Prime Minister will know that, last week, the Socialist group in the European Parliament tabled a motion congratulating him on his conduct of the British presidency. He will also be aware that, quite rightly, the motion was heavily defeated. Who does he blame for the failure of the British presidency—the Foreign Secretary or himself?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Member's question. The one issue that I would have thought it very unwise—even for a new member of the Opposition Front-Bench team—to raise is the subject of Europe, when the Conservative party is split from head to toe on the issue, there has been an interesting reshuffle that seems to me to have something of the right about it, and, even today, we are reading that Norman Lamont and the leader of his group in the European Parliament are falling out with one another.

Ms Diane Abbott: The Prime Minister will be aware that, last week, the people of Hong Kong held their first election since the handover to China. Despite the many deficiencies of the electoral system, two of the positive things about the election were the huge turnout—much bigger than expected—and the fact that the pro-democracy candidates, such as Martin Lee and Emily Lau, had an enormous electoral mandate. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to assure the ordinary people of Hong Kong of the continuing concern of the House of Commons, and of the fact that we will never allow trade or other strategic considerations to divert us from giving the maximum support and encouragement for the people of Hong Kong to move forward to full universal suffrage?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I strongly support the agreement concluded in respect of the future of Hong Kong, and I am also delighted at the strong trade and investment links between this country and Hong Kong. One of the interesting things about the period since the handover is the fact that, despite some people's expectations, Hong Kong has been highly successful in very difficult economic circumstances, and its political circumstances have done nothing but improve.

Mr. William Hague: On the subject of reshuffles, as the Prime Minister has a Secretary of State for Health who does not know how many hospitals he is closing, and a Foreign Secretary who does not know how many coups he is supporting, may I suggest to him that a reshuffle in the Government might be in order?
We have heard today more revelations about Labour councils in Scotland, and about their spectacular mismanagement and gross incompetence in particular. Is the Prime Minister prepared to take some responsibility for the scandalous behaviour of so many of his party's elected representatives?

The Prime Minister: When the particular irregularities were brought to light, we acted. That is the difference.


We are still waiting for action from the Conservative party over Westminster council. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet he will tell us what action he intends to take. We have taken action.

Mr. Hague: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hague: I will answer. Westminster was in 1988—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Hague: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Mr. McNulty, just be careful.

Mr. Hague: Westminster was in 1988, when the Prime Minister was wearing a CND badge; we are talking about 1998, for which he is responsible. He says that the Government act, but the record of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Labour party is to have an inquiry and do nothing about it. They suspended the Monklands councillors, and they let them back in; they had an inquiry into East Ayrshire, and now they will not reveal the results; they have had inquiries into Paisley that never end and never report.
Is the Prime Minister aware that police chiefs have now said that they have had to send police officers into Renfrewshire council so often that, if it had been a pub, they would have closed it down? That is the position now; is it not time that we had an independent inquiry into the crisis in local government in Scotland so that we can see what the Prime Minister's party is doing to local government in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: First, every time that there has been an inquiry we have abided by the result. Secondly, the inquiry into the matter that the right hon. Gentleman is raising is independent. Thirdly, people in Westminster still live with the consequences of what Westminster council did.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has still not given us an independent public inquiry into what is happening in Scotland. It is all talk and no action, as it always is with the Government now—talk about national health service waiting lists while waiting lists go up, talk about class sizes while class sizes go up, and talk about cleaning up local government in Scotland while the dirt grows every day. It is talk, talk, talk, and nothing to show for it. When will the Prime Minister stop talking about all those problems and start acting on them?

The Prime Minister: We have acted. We have acted by appointing the very independent people that the right hon. Gentleman has called for—and we did so before he called for them. That stands in the sharpest contrast to the way in which he has behaved in relation to Conservative councils. As for the national health service and class sizes, waiting lists rose year on year under the Conservatives, and class sizes went up for 10 years. We are going to get them down. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make it a test at the next election whether we have met those

pledges on NHS waiting lists and class sizes, let him do so—when he does, we will pass those tests and no one will ever believe that the Tories will do a good job on schools and hospitals.

Mr. David Watts: Given that crime has doubled since the election of the last Government, will my right hon. Friend say what action this Government will take to cut crime in communities such as St. Helens?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right—under the Tory Government, not only did class sizes and waiting lists increase, but crime doubled. We are taking action in the Crime and Disorder Bill by introducing new parental supervision orders and measures on youth justice, and we are ensuring speedier justice in the young offenders courts. As a result of action that this Government are taking, we are already, in those areas where we have put in place the new proposals, halving the time it takes to get young offenders to court. That is the action that we promised; that is the action that we are delivering.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Prime Minister is next chauffeur-driven through Chesham and Amersham to visit his second home—or is it his third?—at Chequers, will he stop to tell those 4,500 of my constituents, his neighbours, who are currently on the South Buckinghamshire waiting list for operations when they will finally have their operations—this year, next year, some time or never?

The Prime Minister: I was telling the House a moment ago how much extra money we have put in, so let me tell the hon. Lady that, as a result of the extra money this year—£1.7 billion—we will see this year, for the first time in years, waiting lists coming back down. We were never going to turn round 20 years of Tory government on the NHS in one year, but turn it round we will. When we do, it will be because we have a Labour government who believe in the NHS, not a Tory Government who spent 20 years undermining it.

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after 18 long Tory years of complete mismanagement of the economy, the average household income in Great Yarmouth is only 50 per cent. of that in the rest of East Anglia? I am sure that my constituents warmly welcome the Government's initiative in implementing a minimum wage, but will he assure us that, before he brings the Low Pay Commission's report back to the House, he will also accept reports from other organisations on 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 21-year-olds?

The Prime Minister: We will listen to all the representations that we have had. It is important that we introduce a national minimum wage not only for reasons of justice, but because it is not right that, at the moment, we are spending £3 billion to subsidise low pay. However, we have always said, as we did in our manifesto, that we would introduce it sensibly—we must introduce it in a manner that is consistent with the overall and prudent running of the economy. We will do that to make sure that we meet our requirements for both justice and enterprise.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House six weeks ago that


enriched uranium had to come from Georgia to Dounreay because the Georgians could not guarantee its safety? In the intervening period, the head of security at Dounreay has resigned because he could not guarantee the plant's integrity; there has been a serious nuclear incident, which has shut down the processing unit—the reprocessing was already shut; there could be criminal prosecutions; emissions have been underestimated by a factor of 10; and 170 kg of enriched uranium, which is enough to build 10 nuclear devices, have been lost or mislaid or cannot be accounted for. Will the Prime Minister tell the House where the lost enriched uranium from Dounreay is? Will he guarantee that no more nuclear materials will be taken into the plant in its current condition?

The Prime Minister: I really think that the Scottish National party has behaved with utter irresponsibility right from the start. First, the hon. Gentleman has just alleged that a nuclear accident caused the review by the Health and Safety Executive. It was not; it was the loss of electrical supplies to the fuel cycle area.
The allegations about the supposedly missing highly enriched uranium were based on a misinterpretation of 30-year-old records which are far from complete by any modern standards. The Atomic Energy Authority has explained already, in line with the results of its 1963 and 1973 investigations, that the discrepancies in the amounts of material arose because of accounting and measurement uncertainties. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman keeps making, for wholly irresponsible reasons, that any material has been stolen or has fallen into the hands of terrorists or foreign Governments.
I can confirm that no such material has ever been sent from Dounreay for use for United Kingdom weapons purposes, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what has already been said by the chief executive and others on the issue. For the hon. Gentleman to alarm the public in this way is irresponsible in the extreme, but entirely typical of him.

Dan Norris: Following the tragic death and injury of 33 babies at Bristol Royal infirmary, the General Medical Council's inquiry heard that even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could not intervene in the internal running of the trust. What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that the medical profession is accountable and controlled so that the tragedy in Bristol can never happen again? Will he join me in praising Dr. Stephen Bolsin, the anaesthetist who tried to speak out at the time of the tragedy and sadly was unsuccessful?

The Prime Minister: I can say to my hon. Friend that the appalling tragedy at Bristol must never be repeated. We have given a commitment to the parents that there will be an inquiry into what went wrong. We believe that procedures have changed already. However, as we announced in our recent White Paper, we are committed to an independent commission for health improvement. Its job will be to ensure that quality controls are in place in every hospital in the country.
Every national health service trust will be visited every three to four years. The commission will have special powers to investigate whether there are particular problems in any hospital. Its findings will be made public

and acted on, and patients themselves will have a voice on the commission. We believe that the combination of existing procedures—which have improved since these deplorable incidents—and the improvements that we shall put in will provide the best possible chance of avoiding any such tragedy happening again.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I assure the Prime Minister that this is not a planted question. He will be aware from his security advisers that Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness are believed to be members of the seven-man IRA Army Council. Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal assurance to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland that the representatives of terrorist groups that still retain their weaponry will not be placed in government over them until such groups agree to decommission and to commence decommissioning? Will he give a further assurance that, before the assembly elections, his Government will publish the draft legislation giving substance to the pledges that he made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign?

The Prime Minister: Certainly we will give effect to the pledges that have been made prior to the assembly elections. That is absolutely right. As I have made clear throughout and do so again now, the provisions in relation to decommissioning and what I said about it before the referendum campaign stand and must properly be put in the legislation. I have also always made it clear that we regard Sinn Fein and the IRA as inextricably linked. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that in the House on Monday. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having been on the wrong side of the referendum campaign—perfectly honourably, as he is entitled to be—accepts the verdict of the overwhelming majority and, if he is elected to the assembly, goes in with the right spirit of mind to make it work for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Hanson: When my right hon. Friend attends the Cardiff summit in a couple of weeks, will he take the opportunity to ask his fellow leaders to check, when they return home, whether they have hereditary peers or hereditary members in their national assemblies? I think that he will find that they do not.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we want a modern democracy in Europe and a modern democracy at home? In abolishing hereditary peers, my right hon. Friend may well wipe out a large number of the Conservative's shadow Cabinet in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister: It is an interesting reshuffle that puts 14 hereditary peers on the Conservative Front Bench.
We are committed to the reform of the hereditary element of the House of Lords, for two reasons. First, it cannot possibly be right that people sit as legislators in the Houses of Parliament on the basis that their birth makes them hereditary peers. Secondly, it is an absolute democratic scandal that hereditary Conservative peers outnumber the peers of the elected Government of the day by three to one. In other words, there is an in-built Tory majority in the House of Lords in perpetuity. That may be justified by the Conservative party because it believes in that sort of thing—but it is our job, as a new Labour Government, to remove that and make our Houses of Parliament democratic.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the channel tunnel rail link. Mindful of your recent request, I shall keep my remarks as short as is possible for such a complicated subject of such importance to the House. To assist hon. Members, I will make arrangements for a memorandum to be placed in the Library.
In March 1996, the development agreement to build the channel tunnel rail link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the Eurostar service. Its plan was to commence construction in late 1997. The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion.
When I had the chance to examine the details of the deal put in place by the previous Government, I was appalled. They took the cheapest bid based on over-optimistic forecasts of Eurostar revenue, without even commissioning their own independent forecasts—a failing we have now put right.
The Government were seriously exposed because of the small financial commitment made by the private sector. Furthermore, as a consequence of the previous Government's intention to conceal public subsidy of the channel tunnel financing, Eurostar was hampered by the requirement to pay Eurotunnel for train paths that it was not using. Even this week I was asked to find £100 million to pay for specially designed sleeper trains which do not work, have never been used, and are now lying idle in a field.
The kindest thing that I can say about this whole agreement is that it was flawed from the start. In January of this year, it almost collapsed; the company could not fulfil its contract. At that point, I was faced with a clear choice. I could have abandoned the present contract with LCR and invited new tenders—but that would have meant two years or more of delay, with all the blight and uncertainty that that would have caused. The equivalent of two thirds of the grant would have been spent on Eurostar's debts and continuing losses, with nothing to show for it. Eurostar is losing £150 million a year. If we multiply that by four or five years compensation, it is clear that I would have had to pay an amount almost equivalent to the grant for the project, but would have got nothing in return. Alternatively, I could ask the company to reconsider the financing of the project and come forward with proposals to meet all its original obligations. That was the path I chose.
I explained that LCR had requested an additional £1.2 billion of taxpayers' money, on top of the £1.8 billion already committed. That was unacceptable. I gave LCR one month to come up with new proposals, and subsequently extended that period ultimately to this week. At the end of March, LCR made an improved proposal, but still failed to meet the Government's requirements.
I am aware of the importance that hon. Members on both sides of the House attach to this project, which was approved by the House. I have always believed that Britain should have a high-speed passenger and freight link to Europe that is the equal of those on the other side of the channel. This an important project, comparable to

any that the Government are promoting. It is a key part of our integrated transport policy, and a national asset that will bring benefits not just to the south-east, but to all parts of Britain.
All parties supported the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which was unopposed on its Second and Third Readings. The project offers immense economic, transport, and environmental benefits, and improved speed, reliability and capacity for international and domestic services for passengers and freight. It will also play a major part in regenerating north Kent and the east Thames corridor, including Stratford and King's Cross. The Government want to see this project proceed, but, as I have made clear, not at any price.
My firm view was that LCR could carry on only if it were able to deliver the whole project from the tunnel to St. Pancras according to the contract. I made it clear that the Government also required a further reduction in the proposed additional cost to the taxpayer; a robust financing plan based on realistic forecasts for Eurostar; a balance of incentives that would ensure construction of the whole rail link; and increased risk transfer to the private sector.
For the past four months we have been involved in intensive negotiations, and I can inform the House of their outcome. The call on public finances represents good value for the taxpayer. There is a robust financing plan, which is based on a proper assessment of future Eurostar revenue. Incentives to complete the whole link are in place, and the private sector will take a greater share of risk. In short, there will be a high-speed channel tunnel rail link.
Today, I signed with LCR and Railtrack a statement of principles which meets all our requirements and which fulfils the contract agreed by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who I see is in his place. Under this public-private partnership, LCR has been strengthened. A new management team is in place, and LCR has agreed to raise more equity to support the project. Railtrack has agreed to take a key role in building the link. It will manage construction for the railway to north Kent, and will commit to purchase it upon completion. Railtrack will have an option to build and buy the remainder of the link.
LCR has secured a strong partner to operate Eurostar. Two very strong bids were considered—one from Virgin, the other from a consortium comprising British Airways, National Express and the national railways of France and Belgium. LCR today agreed to award the contract to the consortium. LCR has an obligation to build the entire 68 miles of railway from the channel tunnel to St. Pancras in London, via Ebbsfleet and Stratford, in accordance with the 1996 Act endorsed by the House.
The link will be built to the same route, the same specification and the same high standards as before. There will be the same environmental and heritage safeguards, and the undertakings and assurances given during the passage of the 1996 Act remain.
Construction will begin towards the end of this year. The stretch from the channel tunnel to the turn-off in Kent to Waterloo is due to be completed by 2003, and services from Waterloo will then benefit from the new high-speed line. Construction beyond that point is expected to commence in 2001, with the line through Ebbsfleet and Stratford to St. Pancras finished by 2007. That will


include the proposed new Thameslink station at St. Pancras. The Eurostar consortium will operate trains from Waterloo to Paris and Brussels, and, in due course, services from St. Pancras. There will be no change of route under this agreement; it will be exactly as in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act.
I realise that many hon. Members want an early start to regional services. I can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and to put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course.
I know that the consortium has a vision of Heathrow as a gateway to Europe for services from across the country. The consortium proposes to establish, from as early as 2001, a service from Heathrow airport to Paris. Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It is already one of Britain's biggest bus stations; it is connected to the largest underground network in the world; and the Heathrow Express provides the fastest connection from any airport to a central urban area. That new service should, in time, establish Heathrow airport as an integrated transport interchange of international importance, connecting long-haul air services directly to the European high-speed rail network. It will be beneficial to the growth in passengers using the high-speed train.
I have always made it clear that the Government required a significant degree of risk transfer to the private sector, and this deal achieves that. If construction costs overrun, Railtrack will carry the full cost. If Eurostar revenues are less than forecast, Railtrack and the consortium will share the burden along with the Government. I have made it clear that there must be a strong incentive to complete the whole link from the tunnel to St. Pancras, and this deal achieves that. The Act requires the whole link to be built; the contract obliges LCR to build the entire link.
I have always made it clear that the Government required a fair deal for the taxpayer, consistent with the Government's existing obligations under the contract, and this deal most certainly achieves that. The basic grant remains at £1.8 billion. There will be no requirement for additional Government support before 2010. Moreover, following intensive negotiations, the extent of the Government's additional contribution will not be the £1.2 billion requested in January, nor the £700 million about which hon. Members may have read in the press this week. It will be £140 million. After 2020, our share in the benefits will probably more than compensate for the extra money that we are asked to provide in 2010.
All the parties have contributed to that improvement: LCR, Railtrack, the consortium and the Government. Recognising the unique features of the project and our commitment to strengthen international rail transport links, we have agreed that the Government's credit will stand behind £3.7 billion of bonds issued by LCR privately in the City to fund the project. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who will pay?"] Hang on. That debt will be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the completed link. The risk of the Government incurring liability under the guarantees is therefore remote. The Government will support the financing package, which will allow this project to proceed now and at the minimum financing cost. It is a

unique financing deal, and I should like to express my appreciation to the Chancellor and the Treasury for having arrived at that agreement. The alternative would have been considerable delay and increased costs.
The Government do not intend to offer taxpayers' support without asking for something in return—unlike the previous Administration.

Mr. Alan Clark: Free tickets?

Mr. Prescott: If the right hon. Member would listen to what was being said, he would not be so contemptuous of the rewards that we have gained for the taxpayer.
The Government believe that, in a real public-private partnership, not only costs but benefits are shared. The Government are sharing the risk, so it is only right that the taxpayer should share the benefits. I have therefore agreed with the parties that the Government will take a public stakeholder share in LCR, yielding a 35 per cent. share of the company's pre-tax surplus after 2020. The Government will also have a 5 per cent. stake in the Eurostar management company. That will be a public-private partnership with strong public accountability. Moreover, if LCR decides to sell the business—it cannot do so without the Government's agreement, as we shall hold a golden share in the company—the taxpayer will share at least 35 per cent. of the proceeds.
As I said earlier, those extra benefits should not simply balance the additional £140 million of public subsidy. This deal should provide that, taken over the long term, LCR pays a premium to the Government. Under the original plan, the concession for that agreement was 999 years. Eurostar was privatised for ever. The parties have now agreed to reduce the concession to 90 years. In 2086, the railway and the Eurostar service will revert to public ownership, along with the channel tunnel. I look forward to appearing before the House on that occasion to announce the event—my zimmer frame will be outside.
There is one more point. I have negotiated a share for the Government in any savings in the construction cost. I have also negotiated a mechanism to prevent any of the parties involved from enjoying excessive windfall gains at the taxpayer's expense. In that way we aim to avoid any repeat of the fiascos that have marked railway privatisation, not least the sale of the rolling stock companies.
There is still much work to be done. Regulatory bodies must be satisfied, and there will be many more months of detailed negotiation.
This is an agreement snatched from the ashes of the LCR's collapse. The channel tunnel rail link will be built all the way to St. Pancras. Construction will begin this year and we shall join the fast track to Europe. This deal is good for integrated transport, good for the environment and good for the taxpayer, and it is good enough for me to commend to the House.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for making it, and additional information, available to me in advance. The copy of the statement which I received bears only a limited resemblance to the one he made, but one should be grateful for small mercies.
I must begin with this complaint: the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned advance press coverage of this statement and, even for his Government, the amount of detailed press briefing has been disgraceful. Last night, some 14 hours before the House was even told that there would be a statement, the BBC was in possession of detailed facts, as were today's newspapers and sound media. I have written to you, Madam Speaker, on the matter, and it is a cause for sadness that the Deputy Prime Minister should treat the House with such contempt.
The right hon. Gentleman began his statement with fighting words. One can only assume from the late arrival of the text that he was engaged in last-ditch battles with the Treasury and spin doctors at No. 10. Indeed, he has almost admitted as much. Eventually he got round to admitting that the project is important for the country, that there is all-party support for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and that the link offers immense benefits to the whole nation.
The right hon. Gentleman has described the scheme as a public-private sector partnership. Last January, when the Secretary of State made his previous statement to the House on this matter, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who is, as always, in his place—claimed that this was the first taste of nationalisation. Leaving that aside, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government guarantee should and will be classified by the Treasury as public expenditure, and if not, why not?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government are supporting the scheme to the tune not of £140 million, £700 million or £1.2 billion, but £5.64 billion? Would he call that nationalisation by the back door? If it is, will it be a comfort for the hon. Member for Bolsover? Does the £140 million which the Secretary of State mentioned refer to phase 1 or phase 2?
What will be the contractual obligation for London and Continental Railways if Railtrack does not wish to go ahead, and under what circumstances might that occur? What will happen if the costs overrun the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman has given the House today? On what basis have the passenger projections been calculated? As this matter will interest the taxpayer, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make public the outcome of the independent review that his Department has commissioned?
The right hon. Gentleman has described the two phases of the scheme. When is the Ebbsfleet station to be built, and what will be the arrangements for passengers and trains before it is built? Phase 2 of the project will not only regenerate east London but make the huge benefits of the channel tunnel rail link available to the rest of the country. What guarantees can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that phase 2 will be completed, and can he give us a timetable?
How much of Eurostar UK's new management company will be controlled by the state-owned French and Belgian railways, and what control do they already have in the Eurostar trilateral partnership?
It is welcome news that the Thameslink 2000 proposals for the St. Pancras station will go ahead as planned. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when?
The right hon. Gentleman began his statement with fighting words. Conservative Members note with interest that, in order to make progress, the right hon. Gentleman

is calling on the expertise and success of private industries such as Railtrack, National Express and British Airways. Does he agree that life sometimes has its ironies?

Mr. Prescott: I welcome the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) to her new job. I tried to assist her by providing technical advice, which I hoped would be helpful. Her tone was extremely churlish, to say the least. Many of the questions that she asked showed that she had not read the statement: it contains a number of the answers.
There were some last-minute negotiations about the final details of the percentage. I pushed right up to the last minute to ensure that the taxpayer had the best deal. If the previous Government had had that attitude, we would not have had to raise this kind of money to achieve a deal. Does the right hon. Lady not realise that the private enterprise company that was talked of by the Secretary of State for Transport in the Conservative Administration collapsed and asked for a further £1.2 billion on top of the £1.8 billion given by the previous Government, without any guarantees and with no comeback for the taxpayer? She should have begun her contribution with an apology to the House before she spoke such drivel about the statement.
I was not involved in any leaks to newspapers. I am always concerned to ensure that information is provided to the House first. It gave me great pleasure to note that the leaks to the press and to the radio this morning were wrong. The figure of £700 million additional public contribution was incorrect: it is £140 million. That information was in the statement, and if the right hon. Lady had read it she would have known that. The leaks certainly did not come from us. The House should be delighted that, wherever they came from, they were wrong. People were wrong to follow the Financial Times. It is always difficult, because various parties are involved in such negotiations and it is inevitable that they will talk to the press.
I assure the House that I said absolutely nothing to the press about this matter. I strongly believe that I should always report to the House first. After the collapse of the agreement, I even made a statement to the House at 10 o'clock at night to ensure that hon. Members did not read about it in the morning papers first. If I look offended, it is because I am a little offended. I played the issue absolutely right. I hope that the right hon. Lady and I can have a better relationship on these matters in future.
The right hon. Lady asked about guarantees. Any moneys that are guaranteed under Government-guaranteed bonds—although they are in the name of LCR—must be assessed by the independent Office for National Statistics. It has agreed with the Treasury that, because the risk is very low, the bonds do not count as a public expenditure liability. That practice is followed by all Governments. I am surprised that there is some doubt about that. The only qualification that has changed over the years is that now the European Statistical Office must endorse that judgment. Governments have always used that practice to judge whether such moneys are part of the public sector borrowing requirement.
In respect of incentives and whether we should complete the link, major incentives have been given for the part between Ebbsfleet and Stratford. Most of the grant has been retained for that, and hon. Members should


look at the memorandum to see precisely what proportion is involved. The previous Administration made the requirement that Government money would come in only after two thirds had been expended by the private sector. The trouble with that was that they could not even raise 10 per cent. of the money, never mind two thirds of it.
In this case, we have reserved the same principle: at each stage, the Government will still require that two thirds has been spent before the additional third comes in from our side. It is a guarantee that construction will take place. We have made sure that the second part, through Stratford into King's Cross, is heavily loaded in the grants with a huge incentive to complete the deal. We have every reason to believe that we have geared and balanced the risks and the rewards, and have made sure of the completion of the deal as the House agreed.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the reassurance about the second link, although, not unreasonably, I want to study his complicated statement. What hope can he hold out to people with blighted properties, and especially to people in the second stage who are losing their small and medium-sized businesses through the inaction of the old company in response to their reasonable request to purchase their properties and facilitate transfer to new locations?

Mr. Prescott: This is a matter of great concern. My hon. Friend has expressed it from time to time, both in the House and to me. We have inherited the obligations that were entered into in the original agreement. What is most helpful to those people is the certainty of the date—we will start this year. If we had re-advertised and gone out to competitive tender, a wait of two or three years would have added to all the concerns of blight. We have an agreement that means that we can start immediately, which is reassuring, and we have confirmed the completion of the route from Folkestone and Dover up to St. Pancras. That is the commitment we have entered into, and we have arranged the finances to achieve it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is no doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister has had an extremely difficult job in sorting out an appalling mess left by the previous Government. I congratulate him on many aspects of this complex and clever agreement, albeit that it could leave larger liabilities on the public sector. I hope, with him, that that will not occur.
However, the agreement has not secured a guarantee of the completion of phase 2. It is hard to understand why—perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will explain—given the incentives to which he referred and the assurance he felt able to give the House that phase 2 would be built. Did any of the consortiums at any stage offer such a guarantee and did he seek to obtain one? Given the long gap between the completion of phases 1 and 2, what will happen on the commuter lines into Waterloo, which already operate at capacity, and into other London stations? Will Eurostar not operate during rush-hour periods, or will commuter services have to be cut to accommodate the Eurostar service?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The negotiations have, indeed, been complex, and I offer my congratulations to all those on the private

side, in the public sector and in the Government who have been involved: difficult situations have arisen, and they have done well. All of us can be satisfied with the result, and I am therefore pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations on behalf of everyone involved in the detailed negotiations.
Train services will be no different from those under the original agreement.

Mr. Taylor: And that collapsed.

Mr. Prescott: There is a problem, but it is not changed by this agreement. Inevitably, we must start at one end and proceed to the conclusion, St. Pancras in this case. As different sections are built, we shall begin to use the track, which will relieve some of the pressure. For example, going for the route near Ebbsfleet will mean that we provide more space, but that is not the most congested area—as the hon. Gentleman said, that is the Waterloo area.
The only concern over any differences must be that construction may not be completed. That was the hon. Gentleman's first point.
We have a contract with LCR, under which it will complete the work. Railtrack is building the section up to near Ebbsfleet. One of the problems is that, as a private company, Railtrack has certain obligations. The fact that its access charges will probably have to be reassessed twice by the regulator, if matters remain as they are now, causes great uncertainty. If Railtrack were publicly owned, we would not have those difficulties, but I have to live with companies as they are. Certain commercial problems have been created, especially for companies with share prices and equity, which must take such obligations into account.
What we have done is ensure that two thirds of the amount necessary to complete the work is available in Government funds and grants. That is a considerable incentive for any company, and I believe that, under the contractual obligation agreed with LCR, it will complete the work.

Mr. Chris Pond: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, and congratulate him and his team on their difficult negotiations.
The Ebbsfleet development, which is in my constituency, is essential to the economic regeneration of north Kent. The statement has lifted the uncertainty, and that means that we can get on with not just the development of Ebbsfleet, but the economic regeneration that is so important in other areas.
The uncertainty that the collapse of the original LCR proposal caused so many people has now been removed. Many of our constituents were very anxious about the likely outcome, and there was also much anger about the fact that the last Government had provided the consortium with such a generous wodge of public money—some £6 billion in cash and other resources. As someone said at the time, it was a case of, "Buy the train set and we will throw in the toyshop as well." However, everything collapsed because of unrealistic assumptions about Eurostar traffic. My constituents, and many others—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but a great many Members want to ask


questions. We must have direct questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than long statements. I understand how welcome the news is in some parts of the country, but the hon. Gentleman must now ask a direct question. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Pond: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I will now ask a direct question.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us a clear assurance that the second stage will also proceed as quickly as possible? That, too, is important, not only for the regeneration of east London, but to ensure that the whole project in north Kent is effective in terms of economic regeneration.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can give that assurance. As I said in my statement, the second stage will start in 2001.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We shall want to read the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I compliment him on finding a solution to a complex and difficult problem. I am one of the few Members who know how difficult were the issues that he had to address.
As the Secretary of State who insisted that Stratford should be part of the line because of the regenerative benefit that would be experienced by the east end of London, may I also compliment the right hon. Gentleman on ensuring that the whole line will be completed? I hope that he will forgive me, however, if I take with a pinch of salt his comment that he was appalled that the last Government had accepted the lowest tender at the time. I can imagine what he would have said if we had not done so.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some estimate of when the policy that he has again confirmed this afternoon will come into effect? There are to be non-stop services from Peterborough down the east coast to Paris and Brussels, and from Milton Keynes down the west coast to the same destinations. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when those services are likely to start?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I understand why he should say that he took what I said about the lowest tender with a pinch of salt, but my point was that the last Government's acceptance of the lowest tender had been based on a very optimistic estimate of the likely flow of passengers—some 11 million. So far, the figure has reached only 6 million. The previous Government should have carried out an independent assessment, which is what we did, to determine proper traffic flow. If they had done that before the negotiations, perhaps they would not have accepted the lowest bid, because they would have realised that it was unrealistic, as other bidders for the contract said at the time. I think that it was also said in the House.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have asked for an urgent report on regional services, and I should like shortly to report to the House on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was right in what he said about regions and regeneration. When we continue and complete the phases of the contract, there will be the

equivalent of about £1 billion of regeneration. There is a connection to Stratford, and we want to get benefits from the investment.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's determination throughout the process to secure the whole link, to ensure that Britain is properly connected to the European high-speed rail network early in the new millennium. He spoke about services to Heathrow airport. That is a new element, and presumably those services will run through south London. Can he confirm that the developments and the processes that will be required to put those services in place will not be at the expense of services along the new line that are envisaged in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996?

Mr. Prescott: I think that I can confirm that they will not be at the expense of those services. The Heathrow proposal provides not only an opportunity for more people to engage in intercontinental travel, perhaps flying here from America and going by train to Paris, but will ease congestion on, for example, European slots at Heathrow. It is a true example of integration, and it will be useful not only to the south-east but to the United Kingdom economy. As my hon. Friend will know, increased services have been announced for the northern regions as well. Transport is growing at a considerable rate, and our White Paper is about how to integrate these developments, which have a great future.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that nothing in the history of Eurostar or the former British Rail's estimation of traffic flows gives me any confidence whatever that the generation of traffic will enable the company to raise the additional equity that it is expected to raise? What happens to the project if it does not raise that equity?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman define freight? Hitherto the only freight that has been considered for that line was the kind that could travel in passenger-type trains. Does he mean that the kind of freight that will now be carried will be much more diverse?

Mr. Prescott: There has always been great difficulty about the projection of those figures. I can remember the hon. Gentleman being critical of statements by British Rail or by the private company that took over. I think that we have made a more realistic assessment, and there is a memorandum in the Library for those who wish to make judgments. A proper assessment is critical, and there is much agreement between us and the consortium, even on our independent assessment, on the judgment of how many people will travel and at what time. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the memorandum from which he can judge that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about raising equity. That was one of the essential points in the previous Government's deal. We are involved not in raising equity but in a guarantee in the way that I have explained. Of course we have asked the original shareholders to pay more. They were committed to only about £60 million, and we are asking them to pay more towards the LCR equity. It is right for us to do that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about freight. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and Freightliner are already taking considerable traffic growth through the tunnel.
We want to encourage that, and our White Paper is about how we might encourage more rail freight. One of my first discoveries on coming to office was that the transfer of the three rail companies to EWS was not a sale. It was given £250 million to take them off our hands. That was another example of a sale of public assets at the direct expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Paul Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving an essential national asset, and on drawing something from the jaws of disaster. I should like to ask about north Kent. Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to read the memorandum, and the answer may be there.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that work on the second part would start in 2001, and that it would be completed by 2007 or 2008. What I am particularly concerned about—it was alluded to earlier—is the in-between period and the effect on commuters and on traffic trying to get into London; we should try to minimise that as far as possible. Will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether 2007–08 is the latest or the earliest date that that second phase will be completed?

Mr. Prescott: They are the dates that we have come to an agreement about, and, as soon as we have gone through all the details, I shall give a further statement to the House and place it in the Library at the appropriate time, so that the final details and contracts can be seen; but I believe that date to be a realistic one.
As my hon. Friend will notice, that phase will start before the completion of the one that goes through Ebbsfleet, so I believe that it is a realistic date. We have an agreement completed. The line is going through to St. Pancras. There will be problems, particularly with available services. One can see that those problems were obviously going to arise. I shall give my attention to those now that we know that we do have a proper financial arrangement to provide us with the channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf all of those businesses and households in Ashford that have suffered the uncertainty caused by blight, which will be relieved to know that at least that end of the line will be going ahead relatively quickly, but may I ask him for two assurances?
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the environmental protection measures would be exactly the same as those agreed in the original Bill. Given that the Government will now take a direct financial and managerial interest in this project, will he accept from now on responsibility for ensuring that those environmental conditions are met? Many of my constituents are concerned that Rail Link Engineering and London and Continental Railways have been trying to bend the rules, if you like, to try to avoid some of the environmental considerations.
Secondly, my biggest regret about the statement was that it was made as though there were simply one station on the line this side of the channel tunnel—at Waterloo. Part of the problem of London and Continental's management is that it has consistently undervalued Ashford station's potential. I hope that, with the new management in place, London and Continental will


recognise the importance of Ashford station not just for my constituency, but for environmental reasons. Having people travelling into central London via a relatively under-used station, rather than travelling on the M25 and M20, would be extremely helpful for the whole of south-east England.

Mr. Prescott: I understand the importance of Ashford station. Indeed, in order to emphasise that it is an important stopping point, I invited Environment Ministers at the recent G8 summit, who had their conference at Leeds castle, to get off the train at Ashford.
We have to sell more of Eurostar's services. The restructured management is an important step in that direction. Having new people on the board who have had other transport experience will play an important part in increasing the amount of traffic and exploiting the full potential of Eurostar services.
I made the point that the obligations that we entered into with the previous contracts still remain. Government will have a responsibility with regard to environmental matters, but we do that as Government rather than as a 5 per cent. shareholder on some board. The proper way is for Government to address Government responsibilities, and private companies to address their responsibilities.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on what appears to be an imaginative deal, and congratulate him in particular on his success in ensuring that the guarantee will not be counted against public spending for future years, which is particularly welcome.
My constituents have been the innocent victims of the previous Government's botched plans. They now require real certainty. In part of his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Railtrack would have an option to build the remainder of the track. He later said that the second phase would start in 2001. My constituents need certainty. Will that phase start in 2001, or could Railtrack talk itself out of that option?

Mr. Prescott: No.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Prescott: Well, the hon. Gentleman was on the programme, without having seen this, giving us all the judgments, and then congratulates me on delivering something different.
With regard to the Railtrack application, it is attractive for Railtrack to go into that second phase. Railtrack's income is based on access charges, which are being reviewed by the regulator. Two reviews may be involved, and it is very difficult to take a long-term view—that is one of the difficulties of the private sector. That is why Governments get involved in such long-term infrastructure programmes. If the company chooses not to complete the work—although it certainly wants to do so—it would be easy to find another contractor to complete it. LCR has a contractual obligation to complete the link, and I intend to see that it does.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the commitment of the Government to seek an extension to St. Pancras, which I am sure my constituents in


north-west London and people in the north of England welcome. Regarding Heathrow, the high-speed rail link is especially imaginative—for all the reasons the Deputy Prime Minister described—but will its commercial viability be contingent upon the construction of the fifth terminal at the airport?

Mr. Prescott: No, it is in no way contingent on that at all.

Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on rescuing the project. I spent a year of my life on the Channel Tunnel Select Committee, and I would hate to have wasted all that time with nothing at the end of it.
One of the things we realised in the Committee was that for real benefits to go to the regions—especially my region of the east midlands and my city of Nottingham—it was essential that we had the full link right through to St. Pancras station. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will happen? I want to go back to the city and tell people not to worry, and that we have promised that the link will be built as far as St. Pancras station.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, the contractual arrangements are to complete the link to St. Pancras. As to whether the link will run any further to other cities in the north, I have that under review, and I hope to have a report by December. Following an experiment which found that only 10 people were travelling on the regional services, the services were discontinued. Whether that was an excuse because the company did not want to continue the regional services, I do not know. Given this House's interest in regional services and the completion to King's Cross and St. Pancras, I am sure that the matter will be constantly debated. I will be constantly accountable to the House—that is the commitment I give, and that is the contract I have with LCR.

Mr. David Curry: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), am I right in concluding that he can give no absolute guarantee that the second phase of the project will be built, but that he is building incentives into the financing in the hope that the company wishes to build it, and that if it does not, he hopes that somebody else will replace it to do so?

Mr. Prescott: The contract is not with the constructors. It is with the company that entered into the contract with me—the same company that the previous Government were prepared to accept—LCR. We have strengthened the contract and the company has given a commitment. The company will complete what it is contracted to do, to St. Pancras. The company was acceptable for the previous Government to negotiate with. We have strengthened the deal and changed the financial arrangements. We have every reason to believe that, with a proper balance of incentives, we can complete that work. I believe that the company has entered into the contract in good faith, and that it will be able to complete it.

Mr. John Gunnell: Bearing in mind the news two months ago that Eurostar was

cancelling its orders for trains which would have enabled the company to have direct links to the north of England, will my right hon. Friend—when he reports back to the House on regional services—ensure that he has raised with those responsible the question of the direct link to the north of England, so that we can be assured that such a link will be in place in due course, using the completed route to St. Pancras?

Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear that I want to see a feasibility report from the company on regional services. I can do no more than that. As soon as I have that report—I have said that it should be ready by the end of the year—I shall report back to the House.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we will be able to find other contractors to build phase 2 if Railtrack cannot do it, as phase 2 is the most difficult part of the project. Moreover, for the economy, it is the crucial part. Although I understand the need for incentives, does the £140 million relate specifically to phase 1 or to phase 2? Furthermore, did the right hon. Gentleman say that building the Heathrow link was an option for Railtrack and not part of the contract?

Mr. Prescott: Railtrack is not under an obligation to build a link to Heathrow. The consortium would like services to be increased, but current links allow connection from Heathrow to the railway system. Although there will be subsequent reports on the link, it is not part of Railtrack's agreement with LCR.
The £140 million is for the whole contract and is not payable until 2010—assuming that there is not an even greater surplus, in which case the consortium will be paying us, rather than the other way round.
On Eurostar services—I am sorry; I have lost the point of the other question.

Madam Speaker: It would be good if hon. Members asked only one question.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on today's statement to the House—after the shambles that we were left with in January—and find hon. Members' carping on it very objectionable. After many years, the west coast main line will be upgraded. I am also pleased to hear that we will have a link to St. Pancras. We are talking about regeneration not only of parts of Kent and London but of the west coast of Britain—which includes England, Wales, Scotland and, to some extent, Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments, which have re-emphasised the fact that regeneration comes from moving not only passengers but freight. Moving freight and moving passengers is equally important. We are doing all we can—we have renegotiated a number of contracts—to improve passage of freight through the tunnel. Although the rail link has a special regeneration value for the east London area, it will bring regeneration also to the rest of the United Kingdom. Transport infrastructure brings regeneration, which is why the Government think that it is so important.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the other elements in


Railtrack's options, as well as access charges? On the related issue of the Thameslink project, will he say when he expects the work at Blackfriars station to commence?

Mr. Prescott: I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Lady's second question, but I will write to her on it.
The difficulty is that, although Railtrack is a private company, it is bound by laws passed by the House, and the regulator will review its track access charges in the next two years. The review is an essential part of the agreement, which makes it difficult to obtain from Railtrack a longer-term commitment on phase 2. However, there are so many incentives in the project—about three quarters of the cost is available—that I do not accept for a moment that LCR cannot find another contractor to complete phase 2. Nevertheless, I believe that Railtrack not only wants to build it, but can build it. However, at this stage, properly, it must take account of the regulator's judgments, which will not be made for some time yet.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the Deputy Prime Minister referred to a report on the regions. Forgive us a little impatience, but are we really going to say to people in Glasgow or Nottingham, "We will tell you next year when you may expect a rail link"? Why do we have to wait until December, after all that has gone under the bridges? What can we sensibly say to people who are becoming pretty impatient about business decisions?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful remark. Like him, I want regional railway services to be connected to international railway services. However, I have had to turn my attention to saving the one currently available deal that is essential for regional services—essentially to complete the link to St. Pancras. I have now completed the deal, which is good news for Scotland, Wales and every other part of the United Kingdom that will use the new international route into the Community.
However, I should say that advertised experimental services from Glasgow took about 10 or 11 hours. There is some doubt whether one can fill trains of whatever length at whatever time if people want to fly to Paris or Brussels instead of taking a 10-hour train journey. Those are legitimate concerns, which must be given proper consideration without committing a great deal of money.
I have asked—I think that it is the best way—whether, if there are spare sets there now, we can do something about starting some useful services right away. It is possible to get on to the network coming from the north—we do not have to wait for the completion of St. Pancras—and that is why I have asked them to look the possibility of getting a quicker start without waiting for the completion of St. Pancras. That is what I hope to report to the House in December.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Deputy Prime Minister did not give an intelligible answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). One of the provisions in his statement was that LCR should seek to raise additional equity in the financial markets; but what happens if it cannot do so?

Mr. Prescott: We have made a judgment about the guarantees involved in raising money, and that is what

the market will look at in the circumstances. Those guarantees, we have been assured, are sufficient to guarantee the borrowing requirements and the stability and credibility of this company. It is a unique financial deal, and when the right hon. Gentleman looks at the memorandum, he will see that using bonds and having them supported by Government is probably the strongest credibility possible in these matters.
I am bound to say that it is a lot cheaper than the way in which it was done under the previous Administration. What the company was telling us when I reported back to the House was that, in order to be able to raise the equity on the market to which it was committed—about £1 billion—it wanted another £1.2 billion sweetener as to attract the market to put in equity. I am not doing that, because it is too expensive. I have found a better way, which is better for the taxpayer.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on looking at the regional dimension of the link. Is it not important that that committee looks at regional services before the new line is completed? On Friday last week, I received a letter from the managing director of Eurostar, which told me that, although the track infrastructure safety case for the east coast main line has now been completed, they have not even started to do the safety case for the rolling stock, and the problems with electrical interference are being studied only on the west coast main line. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that equal weight and urgency is given to developing the case for the east coast main line?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Perhaps I should have told the House that one of the difficulties with the rolling stock is that it has not yet got its safety case, which is important to operation, because the electronics cause difficulties with the existing signalling system, which clearly creates problems from a safety point of view. I have asked them to look urgently at that matter.
I have been looking at the sort of stock provided for the channel tunnel service, and at the sleeper stock, for which the taxpayers now have to fork out £100 million because it cannot be used. The way in which the engineers designed it meant that the power demands were greater than could be provided for the train, and that has now cost us £100 million in compensation. It is important to try to get the rolling stock working. I am doing all I can, and perhaps I shall be able by the end of the year to give a more appropriate and informed answer than I can give today.

Mr. Tom Brake: Can the Deputy Prime Minister say whether any of the original consortiums provided a guarantee that they would build the complete link?

Mr. Prescott: It not the consortiums that are giving the guarantee—they run the Eurostar; it is LCR that has entered into the contract and signed up, and, yes, the contract is for the completion of the link.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I start by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for being one of those fooled by yesterday's Financial Timesarticle, which said that he


had secured £700 million from the Chancellor. Perhaps we should have known better, given the Chancellor's recent pronouncements. Having said that, the obvious negotiating skills of the Deputy Prime Minister and his team ensured that they did not need that amount of money.
The fact that the whole link is to be built, given the disastrous deal struck by the Conservatives, is welcome. However, given the length of time needed for the construction of the whole link, does my right hon. Friend believe that the regeneration of east London will begin before commencement of construction of the second half of the link, in 2001; and will the blight that has affected so many homes and businesses in east London also be dealt with by his statement today?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, today's statement will add to the certainty of these matters. Regeneration effects can begin now. We have given a commitment on the matter. Following the blight and uncertainty that people have suffered over the past few years—certainly before the previous contract—we now have a much more robust financial position. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the statement in the Library. At last we can begin to reap the regeneration effects from the investment and provide fast connections to Europe, so that we can meet the standards that have been enjoyed in Europe for a while, and enjoy them here in the United Kingdom, too.

Sir Robert Smith: Although we will have to study the details of the memorandum, will the Deputy Prime Minister say what penalty will be imposed on LCR in 2001 if construction has not started? Given that LCR will not

have much of an asset base or an income stream, what penalties can he impose on it if it fails to honour its side of the contract?

Mr. Prescott: I think that I have shown that I am quite prepared to act robustly if anyone is in breach of contract. The hon. Gentleman can expect me to ensure that LCR fulfils its obligations.

Mr. Mike Gapes: May I also congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister? I am not clear on one point from his statement. When Railtrack exercises its option of whether to go ahead with buying the second phase of the link, will sufficient notice be given at the time so that, if it chooses not to do so, the project will not be delayed further, which could cause further uncertainty in east London?

Mr. Prescott: As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), there is an issue of contract obligations. If a company goes bust, as has happened in this case, it is fair for it to say, "We are not going to do it." That is one of the difficulties with a private company. We have international agreements and obligations to complete services in these matters. I am trying to do that by working through an obligation with a company. Some of the details are yet to be worked out. We have the general framework, which I have communicated to the House. I will want to ensure that we do not have to wait until the specified date for the full benefits. There is the completion to St. Pancras; there are things that we can get on with now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Thank you, Mr. Prescott. We must move on.

Drinks Containers (Redemption)

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the redemption of certain drinks containers; and for connected purposes.
Every year in Britain, more than 5 billion drinks cans are thrown away. They usually end up in waste dumps, filling holes in the ground and causing pollution. Hon. Members may be interested to know that, if those drink cans were laid end to end, they would circle the earth 15 times. That shows the sheer waste involved in drinks containers and packaging in this country.
Not only is the practice an environmental hazard: it is an expensive business, particularly as landfill sites become more scarce. Barely a third of aluminium drinks containers are recycled in this country—largely because recycling is wholly voluntary, and we rely on the altruism and good will of the public to recycle. The Bill proposes to give a great incentive to people so that recycling pays.
I am proposing that all glass, metal and plastic drinks containers—except glass milk bottles, which are already re-used fairly efficiently—should each have a 5p deposit or redemption value. That deposit would be returnable to consumers when they take their empty bottles and cans back to the shop. The scheme is free from Government intervention, and there is no cost to the taxpayer. Retailers would not lose, because they would gain a handling fee of 0.5p a container for storing consumers' returned cans, as well as being paid the 5p redemption value by distributors when they collect the empty containers for recycling.
Manufacturers and distributors would also gain by keeping not only the greater scrap metal and glass value of the recycled containers but the unclaimed deposits on the few unredeemed containers that will never be returned. Above all, consumers would have a financial motivation to save each empty can, bottle and container, and take them to retailers in order to redeem the value.
Under the proposal, retailers would be obliged to accept containers and pay the redemption value on returned products if they sell the same brand in their shop. However, shopkeepers could refuse excessively dirty containers, and would be obliged to accept only 100 cans or bottles from any individual in any given 24 hours, in order to ease problems of storage.
Deposit schemes are successful worldwide, and the practicalities of my Bill have already been widely tested. The deposit and redemption scheme that I propose for drinks containers has already been an outstanding success elsewhere. For example, container recycling rates are 91 per cent. in Sweden and more than 90 per cent. in Denmark, because of those countries' deposit schemes. The many states in America with "bottle deposit Bills" have recycling rates of between 70 and 90 per cent. The Netherlands also runs a successful deposit and refund system.
I understand that a British Government study commissioned in 1992 by the Department of Trade and Industry and what was then the Department of the Environment, carried out by a company called Environmental Resources Ltd., concluded that up to 95 per cent. of containers could be recycled if we had a deposit-refund system in this country.
Recycling is vital, and we must recycle more bottles and cans. There are limited resources of the minerals used in the production of many drinks containers, especially

metal cans. Resource conservation is needed, and recycling helps to reduce the environmental impact of some of the mining techniques used all over the world to extract the raw materials for the metals.
Recycling also requires less energy and electricity consumption than the costly, intensive and more polluting production of a new container from raw materials each time one is needed. For example, bauxite refinement takes two and a half times as much energy and ore as the equivalent cost and weight of recycled aluminium.
The current system of recycling in Britain is effective to a certain degree. Much excellent work is undertaken by supermarkets, local authorities and other local organisations, such as the Aluminium Can Recycling Association. However, voluntary comprehensive recycling programmes organised by local councils and others are costly to administer and difficult to get off the ground. I do not believe that we can rely solely on those schemes, good though they are, to achieve really radical recycling rates in Britain.
Another benefit of the deposit-refund system is that it would help to cut the demand for landfill. Drinks containers currently represent 8 to 10 per cent. of landfill waste. Landfill sites are scarce and filling up fast, and new sites are often unpopular. Given the dramatic reduction in landfill that would occur in the United Kingdom if most bottles and cans could be recycled, I estimate that, nationally, about £50 million of taxpayers' money could be saved each year on landfill and transport costs. For example, Bradford metropolitan district council, my local authority, estimates that it could save about £500,000 in waste disposal and handling costs if the Bill became law.
Another environmental benefit of the scheme is that it would reduce litter. The litter of discarded bottles and cans is a safety hazard, a public nuisance and an aesthetic blight. The consequences of the throwaway culture are significant. Certainly my constituents are fed up with the mountains of litter that constantly accumulate in the parks and streets of Shipley.
Bottle and can deposit schemes help to make streets cleaner and reduce litter in public places, because, in countries where the system operates, sharp-eyed members of the public often retrieve and redeem containers discarded by the litter bugs. That in turn helps to reduce the costs of litter collection for local authorities, which now face large cleansing bills each year.
Container redemption systems help to foster an anti-litter ethic in the community. In Oregon, in the United States, where the scheme operates, a widespread public ethos against dropping litter has been created, partly as a result of its long-standing deposit-refund scheme. I understand that, two years after the scheme was introduced, roadside litter in Oregon had been halved.
The deposit idea is nothing new. Indeed, many hon. Members may recall that, until a few years ago, deposit schemes used to operate for many of the larger bottles in this country. Most have now disappeared, except for a few products such as Barr's Irn Bru in Scotland.
A further spin-off of deposit schemes is that voluntary groups and charities have ready access to an easy source of fund-raising activity. The collection of empty containers would be encouraged by such organisations, which are eager to generate resources in a simple and understandable way.
Businesses as well as individuals would be able to take part in the container redemption system. In particular, pubs, clubs and restaurants—which, according to the organisation British Glass Recycling, currently throw away about 95 per cent. of their glass bottles—would have a monetary incentive to recycle rather than to contribute to more and more landfill.
Recycling is a habit, and the public support it. In countries where the deposit scheme operates, the public have become more enthused about recycling, which has led to a greater popular awareness of the scarcity of natural resources and an increase in other recycling activities.
The drinks container redemption scheme has many environmental benefits and an excellent track record. Next time that you are walking down the street, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I urge you to cast your eyes to the ground to see how many empty vessels litter the streets; I urge you to consider how the drinks container redemption system would clear up the parks, open spaces and roadsides throughout the community. I sincerely hope that such a system will come into operation in this country, and that the House will support the idea.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Leslie, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Ms Helen Southworth, Maria Eagle, Mr. Paul Truswell, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Angela Smith and Mr. Norman Baker.

DRINKS CONTAINERS (REDEMPTION)

Mr. Leslie accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the redemption of certain drinks containers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 195].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [2nd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [2 June]:
That the days which under the Order [1st June] are allotted to remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below:—

TABLE


Allotted day

Proceedings


First day
Clauses 2 to 4


Second day
Clauses 5 and 6


Third day
Clauses 7 to 12


Fourth day
Remaining proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill [Lords]

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 May].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS

Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'take into account' and insert 'have regard to'.
No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 5 to 10.
No. 7, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'whenever made or given'.

Mr. Clappison: The amendments raise important issues concerning the relationship between the jurisprudence of the European Court and the way in which United Kingdom courts will apply the convention after incorporation. Clause 2 deals with the way in which UK courts determine questions relating to convention rights and take account of the relevant jurisprudence from the commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers.
Under clause 2, a United Kingdom court or tribunal, in determining a question that has arisen in connection with a right under the European convention,
must take into account"—
I use the words of the Bill, as it is important to be precise—
any …judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court
as well as opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. To be absolutely clear, I should say that when I refer to the commission, I mean not the Commission of the European Union, but the European Commission of Human Rights, which is the body that individuals alleging a breach of convention rights first approach. The commission plays an important role in the operation of the convention and is a quite separate body from the Commission of the European Union.
We wish to explore, through the amendments, the use of the phrase "must take into account". In particular, we wonder whether it is best suited to the purpose of defining the way in which United Kingdom courts should approach the jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights and the commission. We are also concerned that the course that the Government are taking has the potential to cause problems in future.
Talking about potential problems is no reflection of our confidence in our United Kingdom courts; we have great faith in the quality of our United Kingdom judiciary, and we do not want to make life any more difficult than it need be. We feel that the phrase "may have regard to" in amendment Nos. 4 and 5 is more suited to the circumstances in guiding the relationship between United Kingdom and European law. To put it in broad terms, it more appropriately fits the bill.
In earlier debates on the Bill, we were rightly warned about the dangers of attempting to dance on the head of a pin. I shall not undertake to do that today. Let me spell out the difference between our amendment and the Bill as drafted. It is more than the width of the head of a pin, and we believe that, potentially, it could make the difference between putting our courts in an unnecessary straitjacket and giving them the flexibility to do what is right in the circumstances in which the convention is to be applied in the United Kingdom, if it is incorporated.
We believe that the phrase "may have regard to" would be better than what is in the clause—"must take into account". It is a matter of what is better suited to the circumstances. I must make it clear that, in tabling the amendments and making these comments, we are not seeking to rebel against the European Court, to cast ourselves adrift from its jurisprudence or, still less, to raise other matters to do with the European Court or any other European issues—far from it.
I should like to refer back to what the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), said in an earlier debate, when he identified three important points of principle. He said that we do not want the United Kingdom judiciary creating a separate body of law for the United Kingdom, which might go further than would the commission or the European Court at Strasbourg. We want our approach to be within the general framework of the jurisprudence of the European Court, but not to be too tightly bound by it. That is what our amendment seeks to achieve.
Against that background, let me make two further points. First, the European Court has adopted the margin of appreciation that has been for some time an established part of its jurisprudence and thinking. We acknowledge the importance of that feature, and we believe that it has played a valuable part in decision making by the European Court in the past. Implicit within the doctrine of the margin of appreciation is the proposition that the decisions of national authorities should be treated with a certain respect. National authorities are considered by the court to be in the best position to look at the requirements of public interest within their nations. Therefore, the court is prepared to give national authorities a certain amount of latitude in their national affairs. Of course the court must look objectively at the convention rights from state to state, but it does so against the background of some latitude for individual states in their own affairs.
The margin of appreciation is an established doctrine, but we shall hear more about it if the convention is incorporated, which is the will of the Government. We want the spirit of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation to be in evidence in United Kingdom courts. In the past, the European Court of Human Rights has shown some caution and conservatism. It has not always got it right, and I know that my hon. Friends and, perhaps, other hon. Members could easily think of decisions on

some high-profile cases with which they disagree. That is bound to be the case, given the nature of the matters with which the court has to deal. However, it has always been right to approach matters with some caution. That general frame of reference is appropriate.
If the convention is to be incorporated, a degree of prudence and caution, together with respect for national values, will not be inappropriate for the UK courts when they apply the convention to the circumstances of our own country. No doubt our courts will, in the fulness of time, arrive at that view. We want the UK courts to follow the general approach of the European Court in those important respects. However, we want the European Court's decisions on the judgments of UK courts to be persuasive rather than prescriptive.
Clause 2 requires
any … judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights … whenever made or given
to be taken into account.
As the Minister knows, we have tabled an amendment relating to the words "whenever made or given". We presume that the Government intend that to include judgments, decisions, declarations or opinions of the European Court in which the United Kingdom was not a party. We note the use of the word "any", so we make the straightforward assumption that the Government intend that all that jurisprudence should be taken into account in the way required in the Bill. I look to the Minister for confirmation of that, as he was looking slightly puzzled a moment ago. We believe it to be a straightforward assumption to make from the wording in the Bill.
That being so, it means that, in any cases involving any of the 40 countries across the length and breadth of Europe that are party to the convention, the judgments, decisions, declarations or opinions of the European Court or the commission would have to be taken into account by UK courts. It must follow from that that cases involving other parties to the European convention will not reflect a margin of appreciation for the United Kingdom. They may reflect a margin of appreciation for the country concerned, but not for us. The Bill says that our courts must take those decisions into account, so we must ask whether that is entirely appropriate. What may be right for other countries may not necessarily be right for the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Such cases form part of the jurisprudence of the European convention, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I remind him that, when these matters were debated in another place, the Opposition argued that the Strasbourg jurisprudence should be binding on United Kingdom courts. Have the Opposition changed their view?

Mr. Clappison: The Minister makes a mistake by taking too partisan an approach to these matters. We are seeking to explore the margin of appreciation. I hope that he paid close attention when I made it clear that we commended the generally cautious, conservative approach of the European Court, and he will know that that has been widely recognised by commentators. We do not seek to rebel against that, but we need to explore how the Bill will require the margin of appreciation that may be taken into account in decisions by the European Court on other


countries to be dealt with in our courts when they consider the decisions and judgments of the European Court. That is an entirely legitimate concern, and we were right to explore it in the other place and here.
I shall come shortly to some important remarks made by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister is the Lord Chancellor's spokesman, and may be able to intervene on those. We are trying to explore important arguments for being within the reach of the European Court, but not being bound too tightly by its decisions. As the Minister has fallen into the habit of drawing on what was said in the other place, let me tell him what his noble Friend said. Having given him a sneak preview of my intention to mention those remarks, let me give him a slight surprise: I rather agree with the Lord Chancellor's sentiments, although not perhaps with his oft-expressed enthusiasm for the terms in which the Bill is drafted and in which he has taken some pride.
Perhaps the Lord Chancellor's spokesman would like to pay close attention to the Lord Chancellor's words. He said:
There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions. We must remember that the interpretation of the convention rights develops over the years. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights decades ago contains pronouncements which it would not be appropriate to apply to the letter in the circumstances of today in a particular set of circumstances affecting this country…The United Kingdom is not, of course, bound in international law to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
We agree with those sentiments, but must question how well the drafting of the Bill reflects them. Juxtaposed with those sentiments, the drafting of the Bill, which we seek legitimately to explore, looks a little rum.
First, we need to explore what our courts are intended to understand by the phrase "must take into account". It was said in another place that those words would permit UK courts to depart from existing Strasbourg decisions and that, on occasion, it might be appropriate to do so and the courts might give a successful lead to Strasbourg. Those words were spoken by another Minister in the other place. We are happy with that. Indeed, it may be recalled that, in our earlier debates, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Attorney-General made it clear that, whatever other reservations we might have, one of the benefits of incorporation is that British judges would have an opportunity to have an input into the fashioning of convention law. That is all well and good, but the Government have not yet been sufficiently clear on what they intend by the phrase "must take into account".
5 pm
If those words are not binding—we take it that they are not—the Government must spell out more clearly the nature and extent of the circumstances in which United Kingdom courts may choose not to follow Strasbourg decisions. The Government apparently contemplate that UK courts would be permitted to depart from Strasbourg decisions when there had been no precise ruling on the matter in question. Such an example was given by the Lord Chancellor in the debate on this clause in the other

place. What about cases in which there has been a precise ruling by Strasbourg? Do the words "must take into account" mean that UK courts must follow to the letter rulings in cases in which the court or the commission has made a judgment, decision, declaration or opinion in the relevant circumstances? Do our courts have to follow them at all?
Will the Minister say whether UK courts may depart from such decisions when there has been a precise ruling by Strasbourg? The matter was left unclear when it was debated in another place. It is important for the future and for our courts that we know the Government's position. It is all very well to say that our courts can feel free to go their own way when there is no precise ruling from Strasbourg, but what about cases when there is?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question. The answer is clear: it is for the independent judgment of a court to resolve the issue before it. Nothing that can be said here will affect that independence. I am surprised to hear him pursue that argument, because, by doing so, he seeks to fetter that independence. If a court arrives at an apparently incorrect decision, there is the prospect of an appeal, which ultimately could end up in the court in Strasbourg. Those matters are routinely resolved before the courts every day of the year. The hon. Gentleman seeks to go into a logical cul de sac from which there is no exit.

Mr. Clappison: The Minister is making too much of the matter. I simply wish to explore what was left unclear in another place. I hope that he will give a more considered response later in view of the way in which the matter was left in the House of Lords, because it will not do as it stands. The Minister must deal with the question: what is the effect on United Kingdom courts if there is a precise ruling from Strasbourg on a matter that a UK court seeks to determine in this country?
The Minister must give a better answer than he has given so far. It is no use trying to remit the issue to the courts in a general way, by saying that we shall leave it to the courts' good judgment. The Government have already gone so far as to say that our courts need not feel bound when there is no precise ruling from Strasbourg—they went that far in another place, in a more considered response than the Minister has just given—but what about cases when there is a precise ruling? What do the words "must take into account" import in those circumstances?
I realise that the Minister is impatient to get on with the Bill, but he must give the matter a little more consideration. It is an important issue for the future. We want to guide our courts appropriately, as much as we can.
I hope that the Minister will not take my remarks as an implied attack on the European Court. As I have made clear, we welcome the cautious approach that it has often taken. However, we note a word of warning given in another place by the noble Law Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who, while praising the record to date of the European Court, said:
a major change is taking place. We are now seeing a wider range of judges adjudicating such matters, a number of them drawn from jurisdictions 10 years ago not famous for their observance of human rights. It might be dangerous to tie ourselves to that".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 513.]
As that warning comes from such a source, we should be wise to take it on board.
I move on now to amendment No. 6. Clause 2 requires United Kingdom courts in certain circumstances to take into account decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. I want to explore two points. First, is it the Government's intention to require the courts to give the same weight to decisions of those bodies as to those of the European Court? Again, I make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the commission, which I appreciate is of a high calibre and carries out valuable work. However, we need to consider whether it is right in effect to give the commission parity of esteem with the European Court, as the Bill apparently does. Clause 2 puts the commission on the same footing as the court. Is that the signal that the Government mean to send out?
My second point concerns the potential problem when the European Court arrives at a different view from the commission. Under article 31, which is mentioned in clause 2(1)(b), the commission will, in a matter where it has been unable to bring the parties to a friendly settlement, draw up a report and give its opinion as to whether there has been a breach. That, of course, is standard procedure. I apprehend that subsection (1)(b) requires a United Kingdom court to take into account such an opinion even though the European Court has yet to give a view. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
On that basis, what will happen if the United Kingdom court takes the commission's opinion into account and the European Court, also having taken into account that opinion, comes to a different conclusion, which is not altogether unknown? That would appear to be a possibility. I assume that the Government have thought that through. Will the Minister tell us what will happen in those circumstances?
There are a number of potential dangers, and our amendments reflect our concerns. We seek a constructive and considered response from the Government. They know that the courts will in future consider carefully what is said about the Bill, and the Government owe it to the courts to get it right. If the convention is to be incorporated, we want a genuine partnership between Parliament and the courts. I shall say more about that later. If we are to do our job right by the courts, we must not leave them in a difficult and uncertain position on the relationship between European jurisprudence and the decisions that our courts must make in considering cases involving breaches of convention rights. Those are serious issues, and we look to the Government for a considered response.

Mrs. Theresa May: Unlike, I suspect, the majority of hon. Members present, I am no lawyer, so terms such as "margin of appreciation" and legal terms will not trip easily off my tongue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made clear, this is an important issue, concerning the relationship between the jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg and the position of the courts in the UK, and the extent to which our courts have flexibility in interpreting that jurisprudence in applying decisions in the UK. That is obviously relevant to us all.
I suspect that the Minister, in his response, will refer to the fact that we have approached the matter from two different angles in the debate in the other place and in this debate. Our approach is entirely reasonable, because we

are trying to tease out from the Government the degree of flexibility that they intend UK courts to have. In response to the amendment moved by the shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place, the Lord Chancellor made statements about the Government's intentions. His remarks suggest that the Government's position is perhaps closer to our amendments than the Minister's intervention implied. It will be interesting to see whether the Government are willing to accept these amendments, because they put into effect the intention of the Lord Chancellor's words.
The Lord Chancellor said in the debate in the other place:
There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions. We must remember that the interpretation of the convention rights develops over the years. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights decades ago contains pronouncements which it would not be appropriate to apply to the letter in the circumstances of today in a particular set of circumstances affecting this country … The United Kingdom is not, of course, bound in international law to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
Those remarks reflect the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and suggest that the Government intend to provide the flexibility proposed in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 7 is particularly relevant, because it deals with clause 2, which provides that the courts must take into account any judgment or decision "whenever made or given". The Lord Chancellor's remarks make it clear that it would be inappropriate to suggest that decisions taken a considerable time ago are of relevance today. Amendment No. 7, which would remove the phrase "whenever made or given", would put his remarks into effect so that courts would not have to take account of past decisions regardless of their relevance.

Mr. Hoon: Is not that precisely what the straightforward English expression "take into account" means?

Mrs. May: We have tabled these amendments to find out what the Government mean by the phrase "take into account". By providing that these issues should be taken into account, the Government are placing a greater emphasis on the courts following those rules and judgments than they intend. I seek from the Minister a clearer definition of "take into account".
We should consider amendment No. 7, especially in the light of the Lord Chancellor's comments. It would give his remarks and the Government's intentions immediate effect. If the Government accept any of the amendments, I hope that they will accept amendment No. 7.
Other provisions of clause 2(1) are also of concern. Amendment No. 6 deals with the opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. If there is to be flexibility, the courts should not be required to take into account or to have regard to opinions. They are merely opinions of the commission and have not yet become judgments or decisions. Our amendments are about the extent of the flexibility and independence of courts in this country to be able to interpret the convention. The courts should not be required to take into account matters that have not yet been decided.
5.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere dealt most ably with amendments No. 4 and 5. We look forward to hearing the Government's interpretation of those issues. Notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor's comments, the requirement that these matters "must" be taken into account rather than "may" be taken into account, regardless of whether a decision has been made or whether an opinion has become a decision, implies a degree of inflexibility. The Government's pronouncements on the issue suggest that that is not their intention.
I hope that the Minister will consider our amendments as sympathetic to the Government's stated intentions. They try to improve the wording of the Bill, to give greater effect to the Government's intentions. The purpose of these important amendments is to tease from the Government clarification of their intentions with regard to the flexibility of the courts. I support the amendments, because they would provide the flexibility that the Government intend.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the amendments. It is entirely right that the courts should have flexibility when taking into account or having regard to the judgments and opinions described in clause 2. It is important that we should make it plain that the courts are not bound—that is to say, not obliged—to implement decisions made in other jurisdictions, previous decisions of the court or the opinions of the commission. I believe that it is the Minister's intention that clause 2 should not impose on the courts of the United Kingdom an obligation to be bound by such judgment, decision or opinion. It would be extremely helpful if he would make that wholly plain. The purpose of the amendments ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is to give the Minister an opportunity to do that.
I have no objection to the word "must", but I do not particularly wish to see the word "may" incorporated in the legislation. In this context, it is right that the courts of the United Kingdom should take into account the stated decisions and opinions, although it is for the courts to determine their relevance and appropriate weight.
I dissent from the Government's proposal to give equality of weight to the judgment of the European Court and the opinion or decision of the commission and the decision of the Committee of Ministers. A difference of weight should be given to the judgment of the European Court on the one hand and to the opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers on the other. The problem with the drafting is that no distinction is made in the Bill, and I regret that. The Bill gives all decisions equal weight, and I fancy that that is a mistake.
This has been a useful probing debate, because the Government can make wholly plain what I believe to be their intention: that the courts are not bound by the decisions and opinions referred to in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say just that.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am happy to participate, I hope reasonably briefly, in the debate.
Having read clause 2 a number of times reasonably carefully, I have little to disagree with. The difficulty, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere

(Mr. Clappison) has properly proposed probing amendments, is that there is bound to be anxiety about the way in which the courts will operate in practice.
My understanding of what is intended—the Minister will doubtless disagree with me if I have got it wrong—is that the wording in clause 2 is designed to give a court or a tribunal discretion in applying the various areas of the decision making—the jurisprudence—of the European Court of Human Rights, or of other bodies similar to that of an English court applying the decision making of other common law jurisdictions. That is how I interpret it. Therefore, there would be wide discretion, and, I would also infer, the operation of the margin of appreciation as to whether such decisions are relevant to the particular circumstances, which the European Court has to determine in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom.
Clearly, the anxiety is whether the wording is correct and will provide that measure of discretion. I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the use of the word "must" as opposed to the word "may" is perfectly appropriate in particular circumstances to enable the court to do that.
I have further anxiety about two points. I do not want to exaggerate their effects, but I shall probe the Minister about the intention behind the inclusion of two specific references. First, the words "whenever made or given" appear in clause 2(1)(d). I infer that that is surplusage: the words are unnecessary because, by their very nature, decisions by bodies referred to in clause 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) will be relevant, irrespective of when they were made or given, but the Minister may be able to persuade me otherwise.
Applying sensible English common law principles, less weight will be attached to a decision that is old, pertains to matters that have been passed by the march of events and has been doubted somewhere else than to a more recent decision. Will the Minister clarify why those words were specifically included? There may have been a desire that people should not think that only decisions made subsequent to the passage of the Bill would be affected. That may be the answer, and I should be interested to hear from him on that point.
The other issue that puzzles me a little is the way in which different decision-making bodies are lumped together in clause 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). The oddest is subsection (1)(d), which states:
decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention".
As I understand it, article 46 provides a mechanism by which extra structures can be added to the convention. It states:
Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the present Convention.
The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity".
That does not have much to do with the development of jurisprudence. Has it not rather more to do with the extent to which the international obligations of the parties may be extended? Therefore, I find it odd that that should appear amid what otherwise appear to be matters of jurisprudence. The Minister may be able to answer that point.
Having thought about the different weight being given to a judgment or an opinion or a decision of the commission, I am not as concerned as some of my hon. Friends. The key issue in clause 2 is the meaning of the words "must take into account". The clause revolves around that. It has been suggested that the words "have regard to" might be better, and, as a term of art bandied around in the courts, they would trip off the tongues of lawyers rather more easily than "taking into account". Having thought about it carefully, I consider that there is no difference between them.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that Law Lords continually say that they or the court should "have regard to" something, so a wise draftsman might have regard to those words. I simply invite the Minister to say whether that point has been considered. Save for that, clause 2 should enable the courts to have the necessary discretion to apply the convention while not being fettered slavishly by it. I hope that he will confirm the generality of what I have said. Provided that that can be achieved, clause 2 as drafted, or even if the amendments were accepted, would still do the same job.

Mr. Edward Leigh: At first sight, the debate may seem to involve lawyers dancing on the head of a pin and talking about whether we "may" or "must" take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights or whether we should be bound by it. Anyone listening to our debate would wonder what on earth we are going on about and why it is so important. Before the Minister nods too vigorously, I shall explain why the debate is important.
We had a lengthy debate a couple of weeks ago on the impact of the Bill on religious liberties, Church schools and the rest. The constant refrain of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who summed up for the Government and replied to the points made by me and other hon. Members, was, "I don't know what hon. Members are going on about. The convention has been around since 1951, and if it was such a threat to religious liberties or to Church schools, and if people were going to take organisations to court, that would have happened a long time ago." The problem is that the jurisprudence of the European Court is limited. I have the figures: of the 45 applications to Strasbourg on article 9, only five have been allowed to proceed to the European Court. The article 9 point is important, because the Government have constantly argued that it will protect conventions. The point that I have made all along is that the jurisprudence is weak.
The Minister has had a bit of fun today, because he has obviously read the debate in the other place, as I have. He maintains that Conservatives there argued that we should be bound by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court, while we are saying the opposite. Leaving aside the fact that we are perfectly entitled to probe the Government, the reason for that is that many of us are fundamentally unhappy about incorporating the convention and are unhappy about the Bill. We believe that it is virtually impossible for the Government to resolve the dilemma.
Let us assume that we go down the route advocated by my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor. He made the sensible point, with which I agree, that, if we are to protect our religious liberties, we should give more cognisance and more authority to the jurisprudence of the European Court, because it has been conservative in moral, social and religious matters.
I think that Lord Kingsland's argument was entirely justifiable. The Lord Chancellor disagreed, and said that our judges would be bound too closely. However, Lord Kingsland's argument—and my argument—is that we are in danger of not simply incorporating the convention in our law, but going much further. What we are creating is an entirely new Bill of Rights. We are giving our judges—who, under clause 2, must "take into account" the matters specified—considerable flexibility in how they interpret the convention.
5.30 pm
My hon. Friends and I have referred to religious liberties, and the threat that the convention might pose to Church schools and other religious charities. The European Court has been very conservative, and, for that reason, the jurisprudence is very limited. The European Court has constantly applied the margin of appreciation, telling people that the cases that they have brought to it are really matters for the national courts.
Our judges, however, will not be bound by the European jurisprudence, and we anticipate a rash of cases of the kind that we were discussing a couple of weeks ago. An example is a Catholic school being taken to court because it has dismissed a head teacher following her divorce. We feel that our judges, rather than being in the conservative mould of the European judges, might go much further, and that there could be a real threat to religious freedoms.
That is why I consider Lord Kingsland's argument perfectly logical. The problem is that anyone wishing to advance such an argument must be pretty pro-Europe. The Lord Chancellor teased his shadow, accusing him of being "Janus-like". Another Law Lord who has already been mentioned—I think it was Lord Browne-Wilkinson—disagreed with the amendments that we were pressing in the other place. His point, which I think has already been referred to, was that the European Court had been much expanded, and now contained judges not just from western Europe but from central and eastern Europe. Some of those countries do not have our long traditions of freedom.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I think Lord Kingsland's point was one that he made on Second Reading last November. He feared that the jurisprudence of the European convention, and of the Court in Strasbourg, would not be exactly replicated in the decision making of British judges. I think he said that it would not be "an exact photograph".

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The visual image conveyed by the phrase "an exact photograph" is very powerful.

Mr. Hogg: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest and some surprise. As I understand it, he is saying that he feels safer with the interpretation of the convention by the European Court than with the prospect of its interpretation's being at the discretion of our judges. That is a most unusual position for my hon. Friend to adopt, and I am anxious to confirm that I have not misunderstood him.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend, with his piercing intellect and acute mind, has gone to the heart of


the difficulty that I face. He is, of course, absolutely right. I am afraid that there is no easy way out of the dilemma, except to reject the Bill entirely, which we are not going to do—or, rather, the House of Commons is not going to do. We must try to argue our way out of the problem.
As my right hon. and learned Friend implied, given the track record of the European Court's jurisprudence over the past 50 years, I have more confidence in it than in the jurisprudence that may develop in our own courts.

Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that the Conservative party should reject incorporation?

Mr. Leigh: My personal view, which I have argued all along, is that we should reject it. Along with those of my hon. Friends who, like me, have a particular interest in religious liberties, I have said that we are going down a very dangerous route.

Mr. John Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be self-effacing about his opposition to incorporation. It is extremely robust, very articulate and widely shared.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is typically generous. I claim no particular virtue in opposing incorporation, except to make a general point. I believe that, over many centuries, our country has developed a rigid demarcation between the role of judges, which is to interpret the law, and the role of Parliament, which is to make the law. Those of us who oppose incorporation do so because we believe that judges will be given a new, expanded role that will eventually politicise them in the way in which they have been politicised in the United States.

Mr. Hogg: As this is a Committee stage, I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening again—and, no doubt, again and again.
I know the background from which my hon. Friend comes, and I know that he is concerned about the religious issues raised by the convention. May I suggest, however, that while his conclusion that he is safer with the European judges' interpretation of the convention may be justified in the context of religious freedoms, it is not justified in the wider context?
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the judges of the European Court have extended the convention well beyond what the founding fathers originally contemplated, in, for instance, the sphere of unusual punishments. I suggest that, because of his concern about one particular point—religious freedoms, and what has been done in the European Court to safeguard them—my hon. Friend has reached the general conclusion that he is safer in the hands of the European Court than in those of the courts of England and Wales.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend may be making a valid point. I hope that he will not mind if I see my role in this short debate as that of spokesman for religious organisations. As he will know, there is a great deal of concern, especially in the religious press and among religious organisations such as the Roman Catholic

and Anglican Churches. Those bodies need to be reassured, and I therefore thought it important to mention them today, as I did a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend has moved on to important terrain. Religious organisations will be looking for protection from the European Court, within the conservative frame of reference that we have been discussing. As they will no longer have an absolute defence, as the Lords Committee voted to take it out of the Bill, will they not now look for a certain amount of judicial self-restraint from judges in this country and in the European Court to protect them from the vexatious litigants that many fear will follow decisions that we have already made?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will make a similar point. There are vexatious litigants waiting out there—people with an anti-Church agenda. I assume that the Bill will be passed as it is now drafted, given the parliamentary arithmetic. Our judges will therefore not feel bound by the conservative jurisprudence that has developed in Europe over the past 40 or 50 years. They will have to apply many self-denying ordinances to ensure that they do not go down a dangerous route. I can see no way out of the dilemma. If the Bill is enacted, our judges may be bound by European jurisprudence. I do not want that, because I have great confidence in our judges.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I do not accept that there is an argument for the incorporation of the convention rights into English law, but if there were, incorporation would allow our judges to make decisions in the English context based on their interpretation of the convention. The argument continues that, if the matter proceeds to the European Court of Human Rights, at least the input of our judges will have been taken into account.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extraordinary if our judges were bound by previous decisions of the European Court, the opinions and decisions of the commission and decisions by the Committee of Ministers, because one of the strongest arguments for incorporation is precisely that our judges can interpret the convention afresh?

Mr. Leigh: I presume that, if the Lord Chancellor were taking part in the debate, he would make a similar point. He would say that I do not have sufficient confidence in our judges and in the precedents that have developed over hundreds of years.
Our system is unique because our judges base their judgments on precedent, but there is no precedent in this case. We are opening a whole new area into which judges can walk—I shall not say wander, because that would be pejorative—and make new judge-made law. Under the fast-track procedure, an Order in Council may be used or the Government may decide that Parliament should accept such judgments and our constitution could be radically changed. That is why those of us who oppose incorporation are worried by the Bill.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend brings us back to the dilemma. Our choice is between allowing European jurisprudence to continue or,


as the Government have said, bringing it home to our judges. My hon. Friend expressed a preference for the more conservative jurisprudence of Europe, but is he confident that that will continue? Does he accept that many of us are reluctant to accept incorporation into English law because we believe that we would be better off renouncing our accession to the convention in its entirety?

Mr. Leigh: I do not know how European jurisprudence will develop. However, judging by recent history, it has taken the view, under margin of appreciation, that these matters are best dealt with by national courts. I understand that vexatious litigants who attack Churches and other religious organisations, charities and Church schools have had the door of the European Court shut in their face. That is why I have said that of the 45 applications to Strasbourg under article 9 only five have been allowed to proceed to the court.
My original point is important. The Secretary of State for Scotland made a fundamental error when he said, "Don't worry. The convention has been around for ages, and if there had been a problem dozens of schools would have been taken to court." However the European Court is international, and such courts have always locked their doors and said that such matters are best decided by national courts. We are moving into a new and dangerous area in which we will no longer have that protection. Judges will not be bound by the traditional, conservative jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. There will be no other court to which they can refer such matters, and they will not be able to turn away vexatious litigants. They will be unable to say, "We cannot hear your case, and it would be better dealt with by another court." They will have to hear it.
By their nature, Church organisations are not rich. People put a few pennies on the collection plate, and they do not do so to fund expensive cases at the lower court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. However, some vexatious litigants are well funded; that is why we are worried.

Mr. Garnier: I take it that my hon. Friend uses the expression "vexatious litigant" in the non-legal sense. Anyone who is deemed to be such a litigant would be shut out. I presume that he means a tiresome person.

Mr. Leigh: Perhaps I should not use that term. I should have referred to organisations that have particular agendas, are well funded and contrary to the Secretary of State for Scotland's assurances, will be able to take organisations to court. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will deal with the worries of Church organisations.

Mr. Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on wringing every last nuance of alleged ambiguity out of the Bill's plain, straightforward English words. He was keen on the word "flexibility". As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, I sought to expose the flexibility of the Opposition in the context of their attitude here and their attitude in the other place. I need not have troubled, because much flexibility was on display in Committee.
I am not sure whether any Opposition Member agreed with the hon. Member for Hertsmere, but I may be unkindly wrong. If I am, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall deal with the matters that have been raised, but if any hon. Member feels that I have not done so thoroughly, I shall return to them. Clause 2(1) provides that a court or tribunal that is determining a question in connection with a convention right must take account of the relevant jurisprudence of the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers whenever it was made or given. The purpose of the provision is to point our courts towards an interpretation of convention rights that is consistent with the interpretation in Strasbourg. In other words, we are bringing home the jurisprudence of the convention rights as well as the rights themselves. Amendment No. 4 would make taking those matters into account discretionary rather than mandatory.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that there are alternatives? One is to have uniform jurisprudence in this area throughout Europe, in which case the Bill as framed may suit. The other is that the United Kingdom courts can, in the circumstances of this country, make their own judgment and interpretation of the convention. Lord Browne-Wilkinson spoke about that distinction and said that uniform jurisprudence may not be in this country's best interests.

Mr. Hoon: With respect, the hon. Gentleman puts two different points. The words "take into account" have the precise meaning of his second point. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also asked about this matter. The phrase clearly allows for Strasbourg jurisprudence not to be precisely followed but to be taken into account. That is the meaning of the English words.

Mr. Heald: The Minister chooses to stress the words "take into account", but the courts may take special account of the word "must". Does he agree that the words "must take into account" impose a heavy burden on the English courts to move towards uniform jurisprudence matching that of Strasbourg? That point was made by the noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson.

Mr. Hoon: The word "must" in this context clearly means that the courts must take into account the jurisprudence. That is what the words in English say. They do not mean that there has to be uniform jurisprudence. They mean that the courts must take the jurisprudence into account in reaching a decision.
Let me suggest what the effect of the discretionary word "may" will be. It will mean that our courts might produce, on the same set of facts, different results because some may take the jurisprudence into account and some may not. That can hardly be sensible when we are trying to promote consistency in the decision making of our courts. If we allow courts not to take into account the jurisprudence, we shall end up, on similar facts, with different results. That can hardly be satisfactory.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with much of what the Minister says, but may I probe the Government's position on this a little further? Ultimately, the Government will have in


mind an objective. Is it their objective that, in the generality of cases, United Kingdom courts will follow the jurisprudence of the European Court and all the other decisions and opinions there stated, so that, in the generality of cases, the ways in which this country's courts interpret the convention will be shaped by the decisions made by the European jurisprudence?

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it is important, because the UK is bound internationally by the convention's provisions, that our law should be consistent with the general provisions of the European convention. That is already the law of the UK in relation to the international position. The Government are seeking to incorporate those international obligations into our domestic law. Therefore, it is important, ultimately, that the law of the UK, as applied by UK courts, is broadly consistent with the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court.
That is something which, if cases were pressed to their logical and ultimate conclusion, is already necessary. Having been bound internationally to satisfy the terms of the convention, there is an obligation on the UK, as a signatory state to the European convention, to translate those decisions into our domestic legislation, so there is no legal distinction between the position today and the position that will obtain once incorporation has taken place.

Mr. Heald: In his explanation, the hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that, if the factual basis of a case were the same in Greece as in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England, the outcome would have to be the same, on the basis of his present drafting. Is that really the situation?

Mr. Hoon: I did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that I did not say that. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. What I said was that the Opposition amendment would lead to a situation where it would be possible for a court in one part of the UK to apply the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court and a court in another part not to take it into account, producing different results on the same facts within the UK. That cannot be satisfactory. It is important that courts are consistent in the material and information that they take into account. That is why the Opposition amendment is defective, and it is clear from comments by certain Conservative Members that they recognise that fact.
Amendment No. 5 would require the court or tribunal to "have regard to" the convention jurisprudence, rather than take it into account. Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I do not think that there is any significant difference between "have regard to" and "take into account". I struggled hard, as he did, to see what the purpose of the amendment was. Like him, I have failed to find any distinction. The latter phrase is in the Bill, and I do not see why it needs to be changed.
Amendment No. 6 would retain the reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, but remove the reference to the opinions and decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers. I believe that the domestic courts should, when determining questions in connection with

the convention of rights, be required to take into account all relevant decisions of the Strasbourg authorities, rather than only those of the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee the extent to which the commission and the Committee of Ministers hear argument before expressing an opinion or making a decision? I simply do not know. Therefore, I do not know to what extent the decision results from the process of argument and debate.

Mr. Hoon: It is impossible to give a precise answer to that question because, clearly, it depends on the circumstances of the particular case. An application to the commission, which first hears the application, may be so manifestly ill founded that it can be dealt with immediately, without a formal hearing. On the other hand, for those cases where clearly there is a substantial issue, there is a full hearing at present before the commission. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman were to walk into its courtroom, he would find that it looks very much like a court and like the European Court of Human Rights. As he may know, that is one of the reasons why, after the reform of the process of the European Court of Human Rights, there will be a unified and single court from 1 November this year. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, there will be thorough argument before the commission. Indeed, its decision may look very much like a decision of the court.
It is important to recognise that many cases are settled on the basis of an opinion of the commission and do not necessarily proceed to the court, but that opinion may nevertheless be extremely relevant to the interpretation of the convention by the domestic courts. Perhaps more important still, the commission is responsible currently for decisions on the basic admissibility of complaints, including whether they are manifestly ill founded, as I have mentioned. That is an important part of the body of Strasbourg decisions and one that, on any view, it is right for our courts to take into account.
Amendment No. 7 would remove the reference to judgments "whenever made or given".

Mr. Grieve: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, let me say that I have no difficulty with his points about the commission and its role, but I found it a little more difficult to understand why the Committee of Ministers—particularly the reference to its decisions under article 46—is slotted in at that point. He may not know the answer. There may be an obvious answer that I have completely missed, but I should be grateful to know why it was thought that that point—where one is dealing with jurisprudence, as I understand it, and previous decision making—is the appropriate place to put that reference.

Mr. Hoon: The obvious answer may be that the hon. Gentleman has missed the amendment to article 46 in protocol 11. Essentially, article 46 requires the high contracting parties, the signatory member states, to undertake to abide by final judgments in the court in any case to which they are parties. Therefore, in that sense, the decision of the Committee of Ministers is on all fours with decisions of the court. That is why that particular provision appears in its place in the Bill.
I was dealing with the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made about amendment No. 7 and the reason for the inclusion of the words "whenever made or given". That phrase makes it clear that the domestic courts are to take into account not only existing jurisprudence of the convention institutions, but their future jurisprudence, which in due course will be influenced by the contribution of our courts. Removing the phrase would serve only to cast doubt on the duty to take account of future Strasbourg jurisprudence. I think that, during his debate with himself, he reached that conclusion in any event, but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I make that clear.
Having explained to Opposition Members the weakness of the various amendments that have been tabled, I hope that they will be willing to withdraw them.

6 pm

Mr. John M. Taylor: I cannot claim to speak with any of the legal authority of so many of my distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends. I was no more than a humble high street solicitor, and the extent to which I have practised in human rights in 22 years is almost exactly nil. My interest in the debate was engaged by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who began to develop his anxieties—which I share—about the distinction that we have sustained in this country between the role of Parliament and the role of the judges.
This is a political judgment—I shall not try to follow the lawyers in their legal arguments. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough gave rise to a political question—who appoints the judges? In this country, we have the anomalous but rather magnificent position of the Lord Chancellor—splendidly ensconced as he is. He is the complete denial of the separation of powers and the rule of law, because he is, at the same time, a member of the legislature, of the Executive and of the judiciary. His record in appointing judges has been rather good.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, what happens if we begin to assume forms and practices not unlike those in the United States of America? We all know what happens in terms of appointments to the Supreme Court, which are made by senators—for all practical purposes—who are divided on party lines. They examine the record of the candidate, not least his personal life—it seems to be an automatic feature of American politics that someone's private life is thoroughly turned over—and his previous political positions.
During the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, there was a suggestion that a man by the name of Abe Fortas be appointed to the Supreme Court, which had a vacancy in its fixed number of judges. He had developed a reputation as a liberal judge in a more junior forum, and the conservatives on Capitol hill began to argue against his appointment. In particular, they reckoned that he had a liberal record on cinema licensing and that he had let all sorts of things go through. They arranged to get all the films that Abe Fortas had permitted as film censor, and they had a constant show of the films approved by the liberal Abe Fortas. It was known as the Abe Fortas film festival. That is a fine level to which to reduce the appointment of judges.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. If we go down that route, we may end up with a system

similar to that of America where, from the early 19th century, the judges have claimed the last word on the constitution. Effectively, that means that, on important areas such as abortion, contraception and capital punishment, the Supreme Court and the judges, not Congress, make the law. Indeed, the Supreme Court strikes down Congress on those matters. This country may legitimise the politicisation of our judiciary, which we believe would be fatal to the way in which our constitution has developed over three or four centuries.

Mr. Taylor: I do not think that I could have put it as well as that. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and for adding that lustre to what will become an important record of this significant debate.

Mr. Bercow: I agree with virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said, as I ordinarily do. The only exception is that, in his references to the Lord Chancellor, he was showing excessive generosity to what might be regarded by some members of the Committee as an undeserving cause. Further to the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of this increasing arrogation of powers to the courts and the simultaneous stripping away of the powers of the elected legislature threaten to weaken the umbilical cord that has traditionally linked the Government of this country with the people who elect the Government?

Mr. Taylor: That is the fear at the heart of the matter. Whatever references I may have made to the Lord Chancellor were references to an office, and not to any particular incumbent. I had the great honour of serving a previous incumbent in this House, and I hold the office in high regard.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has endorsed what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said—that we are giving judges the final say on a range of rights. However, that is surely the consequence of any Bill of Rights. It is, in fact, the logical objection to the Bill of Rights. Once we have accepted a Bill of Rights—as we have done by adopting the convention—the question for this Committee and this House is whether the judge in question is a European-based or a UK-based judge. That is the narrow question we face, rather than the broad issue so eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend contends that the adoption of the convention into domestic law is the beginning of a Bill of Rights. I offer an alternative interpretation—that it is perhaps the beginning of a written constitution. He would be welcome to intervene on me on that matter if he wished to do so.

Mr. Hogg: Of course it is—this is indeed a Bill of Rights. It does indeed mean a written constitution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members are straying further and further from the amendment. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) must get back to the amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I shall get back to it—if I was ever there. The correct way for me to bring my speech to a


conclusion is to remind the Committee that it is a part of our culture, our idiom and all that we have developed in this great country in our great history that the judges defer to Parliament. That point has not been made in the debate. The judges have a customary form of words with which they defer to Parliament—as seen in many law reports—which is "Parliament in its wisdom". That is the view of the judges towards Parliament, and it is a good attitude for them to take.

Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether my hon. Friend intended to or not, but he was on point in at least some of his remarks. Clause 2(1)(a) refers to a
judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights.
If, in his 22 years as a solicitor, my hon. Friend has read some of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, he will have seen that, in some cases, the court says candidly that it sees the convention and the development of its rights as a constitutional Bill of Rights. The court makes no secret of that.

Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for comforting me, even at the conclusion of my speech. I take that solace and endorsement very kindly. I have—to answer his question—read judgments of the Court. Furthermore, having served briefly as a member of the Council of Europe, I have also read the convention. I remind myself that the convention was written largely by British lawyers. We were the first to initial it, and the first to endorse it. It is not exactly an alien creature, except perhaps in its new constitutional setting.
My initial view of the matter generally was that part of the British people's objection to judgments made in Strasbourg was, more or less, that they were made in Strasbourg by people who were not citizens of the United Kingdom, and whose surnames made it sound as if they were not citizens of the United Kingdom. Initially, I felt that the British people would be happier with the convention, feel kinder towards it and have greater respect for its general authority if it were incorporated into domestic law, and if contentious human rights issues could be decided by English and Welsh judges in law courts in the Strand.
Mr. Lord, that was my speech, and those were some of the points that I wanted to make. I am very glad of the opportunity to be able to do so.

Mr. Heald: Many hon. Members in the Chamber are lawyers. I make that confession—mea culpa.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is a badge of honour.

Mr. Heald: I am pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that, and I certainly would not disagree with it.
I do not know how many hon. Members in the Chamber have experience of taking human rights cases to the European Court of Human Rights. I have not. However, over many years, I have had experience of appearing in the English courts and being impressed by the quality of our judges and the way in which the law is allowed to interact with the circumstances within our island. I think

that many of us want to protect the history and quality of our judges being able to interpret the law based on the conditions within our island—or in England and Wales, which is the jurisdiction in which I practise.
Above all, our judiciary do not involve themselves in political decisions, or in decisions that involve interpreting high-sounding and vague principles—the type of imprecise statements in the European convention on human rights itself.
In our jurisdiction, the convention has operated so that our judges have had no involvement with it. Our judges have always made their decisions in the traditional manner, although there has also been the right of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights when that is appropriate.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is making an extremely valuable point. Is he aware of the recent decision of Lord Justice Mustill, in which he drew attention to the great difference between the general terms in which judgments are given in the European Court of Human Rights and the more precise terms in which they are given in the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be a very big difference between the two?

Mr. Heald: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is a danger that, if we import into our judges' jurisdiction the idea that vague and imprecise concepts can be the subject of their jurisprudence, and that they can reach that type of decision, the overall system may become contaminated, changing our current precise practice of the law—which has been a proud part of our history—into a much more vague, imprecise and undoubtedly high-sounding practice. Ultimately, however, it will result in political judgments being made.

Mr. Grieve: I do not disagree with any of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. Many judgments of the European Court of Human Rights seem to be very woolly and general. Does he not think that English judges are likely to apply their minds to such decisions—as they have had to do to decisions of the European Court of Justice, which have the same quality of woolliness—and succeed in extrapolating basic principles from that woolliness? They have subsequently applied those principles very specifically—so greatly improving jurisprudence, and case law, in this case, in relation to the convention.

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend expresses the contrary viewpoint, with which I was about to deal. If our judges are allowed to be pioneers in the matter, they will not half improve that sphere of jurisprudence across Europe, especially as it operates for United Kingdom citizens— [Interruption.] The Minister does not like the way in which I have described the argument. However, I think that he himself would accept that his argument is that our judges should have an input into the matter and be able to define and deal with cases on the basis of the European convention.
I do not accept that argument. I think that there is a danger of contaminating our system and of changing it, so that it conducts not a precise legal exercise, as it currently does, but a rather vague, woolly and rather imprecise one, as the convention demands.
6.15 pm
In the other place, Lord McCluskey—who is no Conservative, but, none the less, a former Law Officer—said:
The present Bill does a great deal to achieve a remarkable and reasonable compromise. However, I still believe that it offends against points of fundamental principle. By incorporating into our domestic law vague, imprecise and high sounding statements of legal rights, we hand what is truly legislative power away from a democratic and accountable Parliament to an appointed, unelected and unaccountable judiciary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1266.]

Mr. Hogg: That is already the position. Once we subscribed to the convention, that was the consequence. The question that the Committee and the House will have continually to face is whether interpretation of existing provisions under the existing convention is best entrusted exclusively to the courts in Strasbourg or, in the first instance, to courts in the United Kingdom. Speaking for myself, at first instance, I prefer having a United Kingdom judicial interpretation to not having one.

Mr. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend has made the contrary argument that I tried to describe. I do not know whether he accepts that that was the contrary view that I was trying to describe.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend did describe it.

Mr. Heald: The question is the effect on domestic jurisdiction of incorporating such vague principles. My view—like Lord McCluskey's—is that it would be bad for our law and our tradition in the courts of England and Wales.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument. Does he agree that, in contemplating the fears that he has expressed, it is not necessary for Committee members to gaze into the crystal ball, when we can already for ourselves read the book? Is it not the case that—precisely as a result of the ambiguity of existing European law, of the European convention and of European treaties—much political rancour within and between member states of the European Union has resulted? The precise fear that he has expressed has already been justified and vindicated by the train of events that have occurred over many years.

Mr. Heald: There is a trade-off between the important declaratory effect of the convention itself and the price that one pays for it, which is an element of—almost certainly political—interference in the affairs of the countries that sign the convention. I accept that that is a proper concern for my hon. Friend.
The Minister tried to allay my fears about the use of the word "must" in clause 2, which would be changed by amendment No. 4. If one accepts the argument made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which I have described as the contrary argument—that our judges should decide these matters—how does one achieve the type of benefits described by my right hon. and learned Friend: our judges being able to consider the convention in the light of the circumstances within the country in which they exercise their discretion—England and

Wales—so that they can give us the benefit of importing their wisdom to the convention and considering local circumstances?
If judges are going to be required, as the word "must" implies they will be, to take into account the judgments, decisions, declarations and advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights, we are going down the route of trying to achieve a sort of international jurisprudence—a uniform jurisprudence—for the convention. That is to say that the convention is not one that all countries ratify and are then able to interpret according to their own individual circumstances, but one that is introduced and results in a case in Greece determining the outcome of a case in England.
I would argue against that, if one accepts the argument advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, which I do not, one has to say that it is important that English judges should be able to take account of English conditions when making their decisions. The mandatory quality of the word "must" is wrong—the word should be "may".

Mr. Hogg: I do not like to defend the Parliamentary Secretary, but I shall in this case. He will say, rightly, that the word "must" requires a court to take into account—have regard to—the decisions about which we have been talking, and that it would be impossible to have a situation in which the courts in Scotland and in England might or might not do so. There must be a duty on the courts to have regard, but the phrase "to have regard" does not oblige the courts to adopt. There is a difference between "having regard to" and "being bound by", and the form of words used does not require the courts to be bound by the decisions in question.

Mr. Heald: I fully appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's point—that the fact that the courts must take account of those decisions does not mean that they have to follow the judgment. However, my point, which is much the same point as was made by the noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson, is that, in practice, there is encouragement to follow and produce a uniform jurisprudence once one has got as far as saying "must". The argument my right hon. and learned Friend deploys makes my point for me, because Scotland is a separate jurisdiction, and, once one has made the concession of saying that a factual basis in one country for legal purposes must mean that the outcome—or at least the way in which the jurisprudence is dealt with—is the same in another country, one is saying that there should be a uniform jurisprudence.
I do not accept that. The best way in which the convention could be incorporated in English law, although I do not want that to happen, would be to allow the English courts to look at the circumstances in England and apply their own judgment as to whether or not to take account of the judgments, decisions, declarations or advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights. What the courts will have to take account of is the wording of the convention itself, and I do not see why we


cannot have a system in which each court in each country that has the convention can make its decisions in the light of that country's own circumstances and traditions.

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman believes all the rhetoric he is using, but will he put it to the test by applying the same arguments to the decisions of the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg?

Mr. Heald: The Minister's point is not really valid—he laughs, but I have seen him laugh and enjoy himself many times over the years. The European Union is a form of grouping very different from that which takes in the countries that have signed the European convention on human rights—there may be parallels, but the body and the body of law are not the same.

Mr. Garnier: May I help my hon. Friend by pointing out that the Minister's point is false? Under the treaty governing the European Union, which deals with the European Court of Justice, we are obliged to subordinate our legislation to that of the decisions of the European Court of Justice, so there is no genuine parallel of the sort suggested.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that point, which makes it game, set and match.

Mr. Leigh: May I, too, assist my hon. Friend in rebutting the attack on his arguments by our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? My right hon. and learned Friend appears to be suggesting that it is better to have British judges making the decisions than to have European judges making them.
Can my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) quote the remarks made by a distinguished former Law Officer in a previous Labour Government, Lord McCluskey, who dealt precisely with that point? He started by saying that we were effectively "empowering judicial legislation", and that, in general terms, we would be giving the same power to judges here as are enjoyed by judges in the United States. He went on to make a powerful point, which answers the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend, saying:
Parliament will at once move to bring the law into line with what judges say the convention says it is. In fact, Parliament has no option if the Strasbourg Court so decides.
He went on:
The certain aim of British judges will be to interpret the convention in the way that they think the Strasbourg Court will. Otherwise, they will be overturned in Strasbourg."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1267.]

Mr. Heald: That is such an eloquent statement of my point that I need not add to it.
In answer to the Minister's rather footling point, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, rightly, that there was no direct and clear parallel between the European Court of Justice and

the European Court of Human Rights. The classic statement of that was made in the other place by the Lord Chancellor, who conceded that the United Kingdom was
not … bound…to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
That is not the case in respect of the European Court of Justice, and I am surprised that the Minister, with all his years of learning in the law, was not aware of that.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to speak again—although this is Committee, so one is entitled to do so—but I should like to respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. His analysis of the role of the courts in this country runs something like this: the courts in the United Kingdom will interpret the convention in the way they think that the court in Strasbourg will interpret it; and therefore no benefit will flow from having brought the convention back to this country. That is his position, and it is one that deserves serious attention, because it is advanced by my hon. Friend and supported by others.
I do not agree with that position, because the doctrine of margin of appreciation means that the Strasbourg court will itself place great weight on the interpretation that the courts in this country place on the language of the convention. Therefore, the effect of bringing the convention back to the United Kingdom will be to give the courts of this country an important—indeed, paramount—role in the interpretation of the convention in so far as it bites on circumstances in this country.
It is a mistake to think that the courts in this country will simply seek to adopt what they deem would have been the ultimate decision made in Strasbourg, had the Strasbourg court determined the matter in the first instance. Therefore, on that point, I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a very interesting and useful debate, on an important subject that is well worth exploring. I shall deal with a few of the points raised by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a very important point about the effect of decisions taken some time ago, and whether equal weight should be given to them. It is common sense that we should not be bound too much by practices of the past.
Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made certain technical points about the amendments, he agreed with the thrust of what we are seeking to do and the issues that we are trying to explore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made some very important points arising from his general concern about the approach of the European court and his wish to see a similarly cautious approach following incorporation.
The Minister was not entirely correct to suggest that European Court jurisprudence will be the same following incorporation. The courts have decided in several cases that they cannot take jurisprudence into account as though it had already been incorporated into our law. In the fairly recent Brind case, as well as many others, the higher


courts have made that explicit. They can use jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation, because they have taken the view that Parliament would not want to legislate inconsistently with the convention, but they have not taken the view that the position now is the same as it would be following incorporation should we eventually decide to incorporate the convention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made an important speech, which I enjoyed. His remarks were the antidote to the comments of all those who speak about bringing rights home—as though they had ever left this place. This Parliament is the guarantor of our rights, and we have faith in its record as the defender of our liberties.
Without wishing to be prejudiced against the European convention on human rights, the mere fact that a document contains rights and describes itself as a Bill of Rights or a written guarantee of rights is, on historical evidence, no guarantee of those rights. The other day I read a document that contained a very fine statement of human rights. It guaranteed, it said, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of thought and conscience. Then I saw that it was the constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936. I do not think that any of us would judge that as the fountainhead of human rights.
I listened carefully to the Minister. He has taken the debate on the words "must take into account" a little further since it was discussed in the other place. He began by saying that there was no difference between our amendments and what is in the Bill, but then said that the amendments were technically defective. There is a slight contradiction in that. None the less, we got out of the Minister in the end the measure of flexibility for which we have been looking.
It has been our objective all along to try to ascertain just how flexible the Government are prepared to allow our courts to be through the use of the term "must take in account". Since the matter has been taken a little further, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hoon: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'Lord Advocate or'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 126 and 127.

Mr. Hoon: The amendments are purely technical, arising out of the Scotland Bill and the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive when it is established. I shall try to explain the matter as briefly as I can.
The Scotland Bill will provide for any powers that the Lord Advocate has to make subordinate legislation to be transferred either to Scottish Ministers or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, depending on whether they relate to devolved or reserved matters. Those include the power to make procedural rules relating to tribunals, which is referred to in clauses 2(3)(a) and 7(11)(b) of the Human Rights Bill. The effect of the technical amendments is to remove references to the Lord Advocate in those clauses, and therefore to pave the way for the transfer of powers that will take place when the Scottish Executive comes into being.

Mr. Clappison: I appreciate that the amendments are technical. The Minister has explained that references to

the Lord Advocate concerning the rule-making power are to be omitted because they are contingent on devolution in Scotland. Will he assist the Committee by telling us who will end up with that rule-making power following these technical amendments?

Mr. Hoon: That will clearly depend on whether the matters are devolved or reserved. The Scotland Bill clearly indicates which are which. Amendments to the Human Rights Bill are necessary in order to ensure that, depending on whether the matters are reserved or devolved, they go in the appropriate direction.

Mr. Grieve: That is not quite right—is it? Is not the reality that the Government have not sorted out where the powers are to lie under the devolved legislation? The Scotland Bill does not make it clear where some of the powers will reside. I thought that that was unfinished business.

Mr. Hoon: The Scottish legislation provides that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will cease to be members of the United Kingdom Government, and become members of the Scottish Executive. It is therefore necessary, in the context of references to the Lord Advocate, to ensure that the powers enjoyed are either exercised in relation to reserved matters by the Secretary of State for Scotland or such other appropriate Minister as he or she should ultimately designate, or dealt with as devolved matters through the Scottish Executive.

Mr. Clappison: If the Minister is saying that the powers will be either devolved or reserved, will he tell us which the Government wish them to be?

Mr. Hoon: It is not a matter for the Government to wish or desire. The Scottish legislation specifies what is devolved and what is reserved. The amendments are purely consequential on, and, in effect, tidy up, matters that have arisen from that legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 35.—[Mr. Hoon.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: I should like to highlight a point that I made in a brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We, and therefore the judges, are entering new territory. It is important that we spend time getting this right, and recognise the difficulties that judges will face in interpreting the European legislation and how it will mean a change in the judicial way of thinking. In the course of debates on clause 2, we have tried to create a partnership between judges and Parliament, of which it is important for us to keep sight. We shall return to the theme.

Mrs. May: I should like to refer to debates on the first allotted day in Committee, which relate to clause 2 and amendment No. 137. I hope that the Minister will reiterate that the Government have taken on board the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and others on the extent to which the concerns of the Churches should be taken


into account in the context of the Bill. A long debate in the other place focused on whether, in taking into account various aspects of decisions in clause 2, the Bill should also require the issue of religious faith to be taken into account.
The Home Secretary made it clear that the Government were very alive to the concerns that the Churches had expressed. It is important that we do not allow the debate on clause stand part to pass without asking the Government to reiterate their assurance. The Churches are greatly concerned about the impact of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us again.

Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to give the Committee that assurance, in response to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out precisely and very clearly the Government's position during debates on clause 1. I am entirely happy to endorse it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

LEGISLATION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'possible' and insert `reasonable'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 38, after 'legislation', insert 'where ambiguous'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'read and given effect' and insert 'interpreted'.
Amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 38, after 'way', insert
'which reflects the intentions of Parliament and'.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, after 'cannot', insert 'reasonably'.
New clause 8—Margin of appreciation—
'In any proceedings in which a court is considering the question of whether primary or subordinate legislation is compatible with a Convention Right, full regard shall be had to the margin of appreciation accorded to a member state in relation to its statute or common law.'.

Mr. Clappison: The amendments are exploratory. Clause 3 deals with the way in which United Kingdom courts are to interpret legislation following incorporation. That is an important issue, and we want to ensure that the clearly expressed will of Parliament is heeded if incorporation takes place.
Amendment No. 13 explores that issue. We are conscious of the fact that it reflects a current pre-incorporation practice of the courts, in that the convention can be relied on as a guide to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament where the domestic court finds that the relevant statutory provision is ambiguous. That rests

on the basis that Parliament can be presumed to have legislated in a manner consistent with Britain's treaty obligations.
Next we wish to explore how the courts are to go about what is required of them under clause 4. Earlier this afternoon, we were told that the Government were keen on plain English and consistency in language, and that words had to be given their ordinary meanings, so we were slightly intrigued to see the term "read and given effect" in clause 3. We were even more intrigued when we looked at the heading—"Interpretation of legislation"—and we wondered why the body of the clause did not simply use the term "interpreted" rather than the term "read and given effect". Is there any significance in the difference? We look to the Government to tell us what, if anything, is meant by it.
Amendment No. 101 explores the question of interpreting legislation in a way that reflects the intentions of Parliament. We think that that is important. The other amendments in the group are similar. We want to ensure that the will of Parliament is not overridden in inappropriate circumstances. If the courts find that legislation is incompatible, the proper course under the Bill is for a declaration of incompatibility to be made.
Although new clause 8 is important, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak only briefly about it, because we have already been through the arguments about the margin of appreciation, which we regard as an important doctrine. We want to put those words in the Bill because we want that doctrine to be reflected in our courts when they apply the European convention.
The amendments explore important issues, and we look to the Government for a constructive and clear response.

Mrs. May: I shall concentrate my brief comments on amendment No. 101 and new clause 8, because both are at the heart of the concerns expressed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends in our earlier debates, both on the first day in Committee and today, about the relationship between the courts and Parliament.
The importance of that relationship was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who, in an earlier debate, talked about the way in which it has stood the test of time and maintained human rights in this country for many hundreds of years. We should retain that relationship, and there is a genuine concern about the extent to which the implications of the Bill will strike at its heart, and at the distinction of powers between the judiciary and Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his summing up of the first group of amendments tabled to clause 2, Parliament has been the defender and protector of human rights in this country for many years—a position that has stood the test of time—yet there is concern about the Bill's impact on the role of Parliament as the protector of human rights in the United Kingdom.
The Government have stated their position several times—that they do not intend that relationship to be usurped and that they respect the role of Parliament as it has been described. The intention of amendment No. 101 is to make the role of Parliament clearer on the face of


the Bill and to draw attention to it. It would insert words into clause 3(1) so that it would read:
primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which reflects the intentions of Parliament",
as well as
in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
6.45 pm
It is important to explore that issue with the Government and to ensure that their intentions are clear. We reiterate the importance of the requirement that the will and intentions of Parliament should be taken into account. The Bill will give more powers to the judiciary in this country, and it is important that we continue to explore the relationship that will exist after enactment, assuming that the Bill is passed—it does not need the power of Mystic Meg to guess that it will be passed.
The intentions of Parliament should be referred to in the Bill. If I understand the notes on clauses correctly, the Government have conceded that
there comes a point when an interpretation must yield to the intention of Parliament notwithstanding that, in the result, the legislation is incompatible with the Convention rights.
Amendment No. 101, like several of our other amendments, would put words in the Bill to give effect to the intention that the Government have expressed.
Many references have been made to the concept of the margin of appreciation. New clause 8 would specify on the face of the Bill that
full regard shall be had to the margin of appreciation".
I believe that the importance of that concept is accepted on both sides of the Chamber, but, as the Bill stands, it is not expressly referred to or explicitly stated.
The European Court of Human Rights has already allowed for the concept of the margin of appreciation, to respect the sovereignty of each nation state that is signatory to the convention. If new clause 8 were added to the Bill, rather than our simply accepting that that practice has occurred over the years, the concept would appear explicitly in the Bill. That would be useful in drawing to the attention of the United Kingdom courts that issue and the importance that Parliament attaches to it—an attitude that is shared and respected throughout the House of Commons. I therefore hope that the Government will look favourably on new clause 8.

Mr. David Maclean: I wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments. I am deeply concerned about the proposal that the judiciary should have the right to strike down subordinate legislation without any reference to Parliament. The Committee will be fed up with hearing me say, as I now do for the third time in two days, that the Home Secretary is a reasonable man—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong group of amendments. The amendment to which he refers comes later.

Mr. Maclean: I beg your pardon, Mr. Lord. I wished to talk about amendment No. 17.

Mr. Hogg: The use in the clause of the word "possible" causes me some concern, as it may encourage the courts

to give an unduly artificial interpretation to statutory language. I support amendment No. 9, as it substitutes "reasonable" for "possible".
An argument that may appeal to the Home Secretary is that, once one has started in one statutory context to give language an artificial meaning, there is a danger that it could serve as a precedent and be carried over into other interpretations in a different context: a word that has a particular meaning in one statute may serve as a precedent for the interpretation of that word in a different context. I prefer the word "reasonable" to "possible", as suggested in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). A declaration of incompatibility is the proper remedy if the statute cannot properly and reasonably be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the convention.
A different point arises from new clause 8, on which I shall follow from where my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) left off. It is clear and right that a court should be slow to depart from the decisions of a Parliament in concluding that a Parliament has derogated from convention rights—that has long been accepted in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I think it right that that should be specified in the Bill, as the Bill will guide the United Kingdom courts in their approach to the convention.
The statute should expressly state that the courts should have due regard to the expressions of parliamentary will, in the hope that the courts will be slow to hold that Parliament has departed and derogated from convention rights. I believe that there is an advantage in specifying in the Bill the concept of a margin of appreciation.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I wish to reply to some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North Hykeham and Sleaford—

Mr. Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mr. Stinchcombe: I was close.
The points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) were seductively made, but they were wrong in principle and dangerous in effect. Clause 3(1) and clause 6(1) are the provisions that truly give the Bill teeth—if rights are to be brought home, it will be precisely because of those provisions. Clause 3(1) states:
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.
Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the White Paper "Rights Brought Home" make it clear that those words are intended to go beyond pre-existing law:
This goes beyond the present rule which enables the courts to take the Convention into account in resolving any ambiguity in a legislative provision. The courts will be required to interpret legislation so as to uphold the Convention rights unless legislation itself is so clearly incompatible with the convention that it is impossible so to do.
It is precisely because of the opening words of the clause and their effect that convention law will be moved forward in this country in a way that I believe is desirable.

Mr. Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I want to know whether the construction of those words will force courts into making artificial interpretations. Would it not be better for the courts to tell Parliament that primary or subordinate legislation was incompatible with the convention than—as might happen under the current wording—to do painful gymnastic exercises to make existing legislation fit convention principles when it cannot?

Mr. Stinchcombe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I reject it—I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to confirm that clause 3(1) was constructed in accordance with paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the White Paper precisely to avoid such problems.
Hon. Members may know that there has been some academic discussion about the opening words of the clause. Sir William Wade, who is a member of the chambers of which I was a member before I came to the House, and the hon. Michael Beloff, who is head of those chambers, have publicly disagreed in academic articles and speeches about the meaning of the words. It is now a perfectly appropriate time, given Pepper v. Hart, for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to resolve the matter once and for all. We must make it clear that the words in clause 3(1) mean what they say and what we said that they meant in paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper—the words go beyond the present rule and, wherever any interpretation of legislation can be made so as to uphold convention rights, that is what the courts must be invited to do.

Mr. Swayne: I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) requested, that that is the plain meaning of the words. I fear that the courts will avoid the clear parliamentary intention of legislation and do the gymnastics that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) described to accommodate the word "possible"; I fear that they will place a construction on legislation to make it compatible with the convention when it clearly is not, so circumventing the proper remedy in the Bill, which is to bring the matter back to Parliament.

Mr. Straw: This has been a short, but interesting, debate on one of the most fundamental issues about the method that we have chosen to incorporate the European convention on human rights in British law. As hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber will understand, there was considerable debate inside the Labour party and between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats before the election, and much consideration by the Government after the election, about the form that incorporation should take.
As the White Paper makes clear, we considered how other common law countries had incorporated Bills of Rights. We examined how Canada and New Zealand—both outside the continent of Europe—had dealt with similar issues and whether a Bill of Rights could appropriately be entrenched as a basic and fundamental law with a higher status than the law passed by their Parliaments. We decided to reject Canada's approach, which was, in effect, to establish a fundamental law that, in certain circumstances, took precedence over laws

passed by its Parliament. We also considered the New Zealand model. We came up with our own approach—it is a British answer to a British problem—fundamental to which is the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament.
I have never believed—my colleagues share this view—that it would be sensible in this country to have a supreme court that could override the will of Parliament. Indeed, such a system would be extremely dangerous without a written or codified constitution or—as applies in the United States and almost all other constitutions—the mechanisms to override the fundamental law as laid down by a supreme court.
It would mean that judges in a British supreme court would be accorded more power than is, in practice, accorded to US Supreme Court judges, whose decisions can, in the final analysis, be overridden by the popular will through an amendment to the constitution—without such a facility to override judges who are unelected or who were elected many years before, the democratic processes cannot operate effectively.
For that reason, we decided that, while of course the courts would have clear powers to apply the European convention—without that, we would not be bringing rights home—ultimately Parliament's will would prevail. We have applied that in a number of ways which I shall place on record before answering the specific points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
Clause 19 requires a Minister introducing a new measure to
make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the legislation are or are not compatible with the Convention rights
or say that he is unable to make such a statement.
7 pm
Nothing could be more compatible with the sovereignty of Parliament than the fact that the Bill incorporating the convention on human rights refers to the possibility—that may happen week by week—that Ministers have to apply it to future legislation. That is not to say that they have to force future Bills into the apparent straitjacket of the convention; they simply have to make a statement to the House on whether a measure is compatible with the European convention, and therefore with the Bill.
Obviously, it will be incumbent on Ministers—certainly under the present Administration—to do their best to ensure that Bills are compatible with the convention. Indeed, that practice was followed for many years by the previous Administration. They also subscribed to decent human rights, and for the practical reason that, if Bills were introduced that were knowingly incompatible with the convention, the Government could easily end up in trouble, if not with United Kingdom courts, with the European Court of Human Rights, which in practice has a facility to override Parliament so long as Parliament decides to accede to the convention. That is the first way in which we respect the sovereignty of the House.
The second is through clause 3, which is very clear. I should let the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) know that we will go on to discussing its detailed wording—it was easier to refer to his constituency when he represented the former Prime Minister's home town, which was not such a mouthful.
Clause 3(1) states:
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights.
Subsection (2)(b) makes it absolutely clear that
This section … does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation".
The issue of incompatibility of legislation can be addressed only by the higher courts. I should explain to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that no group of senior judges looking at the clause will come to any other view but that the intention of Parliament is that there may be legislation that is incompatible with the convention—either in future or previously—and, that even if it is found to be incompatible, it will remain in force unless and until the House, by accelerated or normal procedure, decides otherwise.

Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary has been making the point that, in this context, the Government are keen not to undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Does he understand that Opposition Members who have studied the argument would have much greater confidence in that approach had he not adopted the remedial order procedure set out in the Bill, which provides for affirmative resolutions for changing primary legislation? We would feel very much happier if he gave sympathetic consideration to amendment No. 64 to clause 10. We would then have much greater confidence in his assertion that he is not seeking to undermine parliamentary sovereignty.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point that he also made on Second Reading. I have been considering it, but I shall make no promises, except to say that I found it a cogent argument. It is by no means the only occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a cogent argument, and I listened to him with great care. We shall discuss the matter in more detail when we reach clause 10, but our intention is that the procedure under clause 10 should be used not to bypass the will of the House, but simply to deal with practical problems that may arise. I hope to provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a satisfactory explanation when we reach clause 10 and, if I cannot, I shall take further account of his remarks.
Even on the most dismal interpretation of clause 10, the will of the House still prevails. It may be a truncated procedure, but it certainly does not give the courts the power to say what the law of the land should be. We are seeking to provide a truncated procedure with rather more care than the previous Administration took with the famous Henry VIII clauses on deregulation, for example.
I shall now respond to some of the specific points that have been raised during the debate, although I hope that Opposition Members will accept that I have dealt with the gravamen of their points in some detail.
Amendment No. 9 would require legislation to be construed in accordance with convention rights so far as it is "reasonable" to do so, rather than so far as it is "possible" to do so. The likely result—and no doubt the intention—is that the courts would not go so far down the road of interpreting legislation as they would under the terms of clause 3 as it stands.
As I have said, we want the courts to strive to find an interpretation of legislation that is consistent with convention rights, so far as the plain words of the

legislation allow, and only in the last resort to conclude that the legislation is simply incompatible with them. The Opposition want the courts to arrive somewhat earlier at the conclusion that the legislation is simply incompatible with the convention. I cannot see what could be gained by that, bearing in mind our responsibilities under the convention, apart from the prospect of more cases ending up in Strasbourg because fewer people would be satisfied with the interpretation of the United Kingdom courts.

Mr. Hogg: There are at least two disadvantages to the Home Secretary's argument. First, the courts may be required to give a strained meaning to language, and that in principle is not a good thing. Secondly, if they give a strained meaning to language in the context of this legislation, it could serve as a precedent that reads across and guides courts in their interpretation of language that is wholly outwith the statute under discussion.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on his second point. The legal section of the House of Commons Library, like any other law library, has wonderful tomes—of which, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made good use, as I did in my brief practice—of words and phrases judicially interpreted. Of course interpretation by one of the higher courts of a particular word will read across into many other circumstances, often anticipated. That is why, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than I do, parliamentary counsel is so keen on one word rather than another.
I am not convinced, however, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point that the courts will contort the meaning of words until they lose their meaning altogether. In many cases, particularly in respect of statutory interpretation, the whole task of the court is not to make up the law, but to say what it means where that is not clear or where its application in particular circumstances is not clear. The courts are well versed in the interpretation of the law and of Parliament's intention.
Let me say in reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead that there was a time when all the courts could do to divine the intention of Parliament was to apply themselves to the words on the face of any Act. Now, following Pepper v. Hart, they are able to look behind that and, not least, to look at the words used by Ministers. I do not think the courts will need to apply themselves to the words that I am about to use, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say that it is not our intention that the courts, in applying what is now clause 3, should contort the meaning of words to produce implausible or incredible meanings. I am talking about plain words in what is actually a clear Bill with plain language-with the intention of Parliament set out in Hansard, should the courts wish to refer to it.

Mr. Grieve: Perhaps the clause should say "possible and reasonable", but the right hon. Gentleman might then say that the courts are always supposed to be reasonable, so it is not necessary to include that word.

Mr. Straw: Ever since the Wednesbury decision, the courts have chided others for being unreasonable, so it is difficult to imagine them not being reasonable. If we had used just the word "reasonable", we would have created a subjective test. "Possible" is different. It means,


"What is the possible interpretation? Let us look at this set of words and the possible interpretations." My bet is—without putting this in the Bill—

Mr. Clappison: How much?

Mr. Straw: More than I have placed on a horse in the Derby, but the amount remains a matter between me and my bookmaker.
My bet is that the courts will say that they will adopt a reasonable approach. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, they would be the last to admit to adopting an unreasonable approach. I am comfortable with the words in the Bill and I do not believe that the courts will contort them in the way that hon. Members implied.
I come back to the point about parliamentary sovereignty. If the higher courts come up with an interpretation that makes the intention of Parliament risible and means that legislation is applied in a way that is unreasonable and has ridiculous results, it is open to the House to change the decision. For example, in the Crime and Disorder Bill we are overturning the decision of the court in Regina v. Khan—

Mr. Clappison: No, you are not.

Mr. Straw: With great respect, we are; we are abolishing the concept of doli incapax—[Interruption.] I hope that we are overturning Khan, but I will not go any further into that—[Interruption.] It is open to the House—it is its ultimate right—to change a decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) asked which of the academics I backed. I back those who have read the plain words in this clause and take the view that it moves us on from the way in which the courts currently interpret convention legislation. Hon. Members should feel reassured by the fact that our courts have had quite a lot of experience in interpreting the convention. Where there is ambiguity, they come down on the side of the convention.
Just before the general election, I amused myself by reading The Times law reports. I try to do that most days. There was a very technical report about the interpretation of a contract. To resolve the issue, the Court of Appeal had wisely looked at the European convention—this was a long time before there was any prospect of its being incorporated—to help it to form a view. The courts have experience. We are moving forward, and we intend to ensure, as the wording makes clear, that, in so far as it is possible, primary and subordinate legislation is read and given effect in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised. In conclusion, I want to deal with new clause 8. It would require the courts, in considering whether legislation was compatible with convention rights, to have full regard to the margin of appreciation accorded to states by Strasbourg institutions. Presumably that is intended to signal to the courts that they should recognise the primary responsibility of Governments for detailed decisions on how convention rights are given effect in domestic law.
The doctrine of the margin of appreciation—it is an important one—recognises that a state is allowed a certain measure of discretion, subject to European supervision, when it takes legislative, judicial or administrative action in respect of some convention rights. In other words, it is best placed to decide in the first place whether—and, if so, what—action is required.
My first point about the margin of appreciation is that it is more relevant to some convention rights than to others. It is especially relevant to articles 8 to 11, which enable restrictions to be placed on rights where that is necessary in a democratic society, for any one of a number of reasons. It is less relevant to some of the other articles, for example, article 2 on the right to life, and article 3 on the prohibition on torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
7.15 pm
The doctrine of the margin of appreciation means allowing this country a margin of appreciation when it interprets our law and the actions of our Governments in an international court, perhaps the European Court of Human Rights. Through incorporation we are giving a profound margin of appreciation to British courts to interpret the convention in accordance with British jurisprudence as well as European jurisprudence.
One of the frustrations of non-incorporation has been that our own judges—for whom I have a high regard, as, I believe, do Opposition Members—have not been able to bring their intellectual skills and our great tradition of common law to bear on the development of European convention jurisprudence.

Mr. Grieve: I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said on this matter. It is why I favour incorporation. However, it is interesting to note that, although that is clearly the intention—and I believe will be the result—this Bill is statute, not common, law. Where does it spell out to the judiciary that the margin of appreciation is available to it in the way that it interprets the Bill? This is an interesting point and I would welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments on it. We may have implied that that is what the courts should do, but where is that stated in the Bill?

Mr. Straw: The margin of appreciation is laid down in many commission and court judgments. Therefore, it is spelt out in the meaning of clause 2. That is the direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. In addition, and as the financial memorandum makes clear, we will spend £5 million on judicial training. I am not making a trivial point. A great deal of time, effort and money will go into the training of the judiciary. I know from my contacts with senior members of the judiciary that they are already alive to the need to bring themselves up to speed on this important development of our law.

Mr. Hogg: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the British courts should be very slow to find that, where Parliament has expressly dealt with an issue involving convention rights, the decision of Parliament is a derogation, a departure or a diminution of convention rights? The working assumption should be that, when Parliament has addressed a matter, it has not derogated


from convention rights. If that is the approach that the courts should adopt, would it not be helpful to put that concept—perhaps differently expressed—in the Bill?

Mr. Straw: We are working that matter not only into the drafting of future legislation, but into the presentation of Bills by Ministers. That is the purpose of clause 19. When a Bill comes before Parliament, the Minister will give Parliament his best view, based on advice from officials and, above all, parliamentary counsel, on whether it is compatible with the convention.
That was the practice for some time under the previous Conservative Administration. I think that it would be impossible to say that all legislation, of whatever antiquity, was passed in a manner compatible with the convention. It is, by definition, impossible to say that of legislation passed before the convention was even a gleam in the eye of a former Conservative Lord Chancellor.
It took some decades before the House, our courts and the parliamentary draftsmen became sensitised to the need to ensure compatibility. It was not until the changes of 1966, allowing individual petition to the European Commission, that Governments began to take on board the need for compatibility in the way in which they went about their daily business and in the drafting of Bills. That is my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mr. Hogg: It is an historical answer.

Mr. Straw: It is. As far as the future is concerned, we are of course inviting the courts to work on the assumption that the House has applied itself to ensuring that legislation is compatible with the convention, except where a Minister comes to the House to say that there are overriding reasons why it is not, to give those reasons and to ask the House to agree the legislation in any case.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has made a sound point, and I concede that he is right. However, I see no objection to the concept of incorporating into the Bill the proposition that, for prospective legislation, the courts should proceed on the assumption that there has not been a derogation of convention rights where Parliament has expressly addressed that question. I see certain advantages in doing that.

Mr. Straw: We are achieving the right hon. and learned Gentleman's purpose by a different route through clause 19, which we shall discuss when we reach it. I ask him to read that and to contribute at that stage.
I have gone into some detail to answer the important points that have been made. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting debate, and the Home Secretary, having rightly acknowledged that important points have been raised, has endeavoured to deal with them. It has been reasonable—if I dare use that word—to explore these issues. My first reaction to the proposals was similar to that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Having considered the words used in the clause, we were concerned by the prospect of courts straining to give legislation an unrealistic interpretation,

and by the possibility that the clearly expressed will of Parliament might be lost in that process. In those circumstances, it would have been preferable for the courts simply to make a declaration of incompatibility, which would have resulted in legislation returning to the House.
I drew some encouragement from the Home Secretary's initial remarks. I respected the clearly argued contribution of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who drew on academic authorities. The Home Secretary's response against that background gave me some encouragement about the importance that the Home Secretary attached to parliamentary sovereignty. The Home Secretary clearly feels that parliamentary sovereignty has been preserved in the Bill.
We have reservations about clause 10, to which the Home Secretary referred, and we may put some of his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in the bank for when we debate that. I appreciate that the Home Secretary made those remarks quite deliberately, but they may, less deliberately, have implications for the next group of amendments, which relate to the striking down by courts of subordinate legislation without that legislation coming back to the House.
The Home Secretary knows our concerns. We wanted a clear exposition from the Government to the effect that the courts were not to strain to give legislation an artificial or unrealistic meaning. We have drawn some reassurance from his remarks, although not complete reassurance. On that basis, and because we need to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 46, leave out from 'legislation' to end of line 2 on page 3.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from 'right' to end of line 15.
No. 12, in page 3, line 16, at end insert
'and save for making a declaration of incompatibility as aforesaid a court shall not otherwise strike down any subordinate legislation by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right'.

Mr. Clappison: We now come to what happens when a court finds that legislation is incompatible with a convention right. In the case of primary legislation, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility, which results in the procedure for remedial action to which I referred in the previous debate.
In the case of subordinate legislation, the position is a little more complicated. If subordinate legislation is incompatible with a convention right, and the primary legislation under which it was made prevents removal of that incompatibility, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility. If, however, the subordinate legislation is incompatible and the primary legislation does not prevent removal of the incompatibility, the court may strike down the subordinate legislation without it coming back to the House.
That is a significant development, which goes beyond the present position, in which courts may hold subordinate legislation to be invalid only in certain limited


circumstances under judicial review. I do not want to go too far into the intricacies of that, but it is established that the grounds on which courts can strike down legislation are limited.
The powers to strike down subordinate legislation conferred by the Bill go beyond that, and take us into new constitutional territory. The courts will be able to strike down subordinate legislation that is unobjectionable on existing grounds of ultra vires. We do not question the legitimacy of the established doctrine of judicial review on grounds of ultra vires, but we are worried by the new constitutional implications of allowing courts to strike down subordinate legislation on grounds of incompatibility where the legislation is not ultra vires and without the matter coming back to the House. That may mark a change in the constitutional role of the courts, which we should not allow to pass without comment.
The Lord Chancellor, a supporter of incorporation of the European convention on human rights, made a robust statement of the principles governing the constitutional position of the courts in his 1995 Administrative Law Bar Association lecture. He said that the key principle was that
judicial review is not an appellate procedure. The court must not substitute its opinion for that of the decision maker. The court must rule only upon the legality of the decision and not upon its correctness. The court will concern itself with the manner in which a decision is reached rather than with the substantive merits of the decision itself.
The Lord Chancellor was correct on that occasion, and right to draw a distinction between the procedural grounds on which judicial review is exercised and an appellate procedure that looks at the substantive merits of a decision.
The Bill's new procedure seems to lead the courts into considering the substantive merits of issues, rather than procedure. The Lord Chancellor's considered speech drew on a long line of historical precedents, to justify his analysis of the constitutional role of the courts and the place that they occupy in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor's line of precedence went back at great length, almost, although not quite, to Tudor times—I say that without meaning anything by it—and began with Bonham's case in 1610.
We know that the noble Lord Chancellor loves historical precedents, and he drew together a number to justify what he thought was the correct constitutional position between Parliament and the courts. We think that that was right, but we are now being asked to do something new under the clause. It involves the courts moving beyond the existing constitutional framework into new territory. We cannot allow that to happen without marking it in some way.
One of our main concerns throughout the Bill has been the position of parliamentary sovereignty. We have just heard the Home Secretary speak at length on how parliamentary sovereignty has been preserved, notwithstanding incorporation, through the mechanisms in the Bill. However, we now have an example of exactly what the Home Secretary warned about: courts having the power to strike down legislation without the matter coming back to the House. Although we have reservations about the Government's remedial action, it is important, as a matter of principle, for legislation to come back to the House rather than be struck down by the courts without coming back to the House.
This is a constitutional precedent, and it is relevant to parliamentary sovereignty. The Committee should mark it and not allow it to pass.

Mr. Grieve: I find the position in respect of this clause particularly difficult. I shall explain why. We are dealing with subordinate legislation, and my experience as a barrister is that subordinate legislation is sometimes struck down by judges for being ultra vires. When that has happened, no seismic shock has passed through this House, because most subordinate legislation is brought into being after the merest scrutiny by the House.
I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I know that our method of scrutinising subordinate legislation is totally inadequate. It is not far from being a disgrace. I say that on a non-partisan basis, because it has existed for a long time.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Grieve: I should like to develop my argument first.
The prospect of the courts striking down subordinate legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with the European convention as incorporated bothers me less than my anxiety that this will be an area of potential conflict unless Parliament puts into operation proper methods of scrutiny of subordinate legislation before it comes into being. In practical terms, it is far more likely that subordinate legislation will be the subject of dispute than primary legislation, although I am sure that the Government and individual Departments will in future provide close scrutiny of subsequent subordinate legislation to ensure that that does not happen.
The problem, which we shall come to when we consider the Henry VIII clause, is that I have always been absolutely persuaded that, if the principle of incorporation is to work, it will be because Parliament and the courts seem to be acting in tandem because one is not subordinate to the other and it is Parliament's will that the rights as set out in the Bill should be incorporated and upheld, and because Members of Parliament will look to the courts to provide them with guidance in carrying that out.
We must move away for a moment from the question of the precise wording of the Bill and whether judges ultimately have the power to strike down subordinate legislation and persuade the Government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary and the Home Secretary, that regard must be had to how subordinate legislation is brought into being. Unless it is perceived by both Parliament and the public that Parliament takes an active role in ensuring that the subordinate legislation is compatible with the European convention, we shall subsequently have a fertile area of conflict if the judges then go round striking it down.
I accept that I am widening the scope of the argument a little beyond the precise wording of the amendment, and I apologise to you, Sir Alan, for doing so. However, it is a point of fundamental importance and it must be addressed. I am aware that Justice has been particularly exercised on the matter, because it is convinced that there will have to be some form of parliamentary Committee to scrutinise subordinate legislation. With a certain refreshing naivety, it came to see me and inquired whether



I thought that the Select Committee dealing with statutory instruments could do the job. The answer is, "Yes, it could. But it would have to be several Committees, not one, and it would have to be given the teeth to do it. It certainly has the expertise."
I realise that it is a separate issue, which will be discrete from the Bill, but the acceptability of the courts striking down subordinate legislation will be greatly enhanced if the mechanisms by which that subordinate legislation is brought into being are subject to proper scrutiny. Unless they are, we run the serious risk of the courts operating in that area, and Parliament will be held in contempt. We do not scrutinise subordinate legislation properly in the first place, so we shall be ill prepared to complain when subsequently it is deleted.
That is more important, potentially, than amending the Bill as it stands. My experience as a barrister is that, ultimately, subordinate legislation is regarded as the creature of Ministers. If Ministers get it wrong and it is struck down, no seismic shocks ripple through our constitution. Nevertheless, it is an important point and I hope that the mere fact that it highlights the deficiencies in the creation of subordinate legislation means that we shall end up with a much better constitutional procedure for dealing with the growing amount of such legislation. In the 1960s, we passed some 25 pieces of subordinate legislation a year, and today we look at about 70 a week in Committee. Unless the matter is brought under control, it will cause serious problems in the future.

Mr. Hogg: I wish to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has been saying. Ever since I have been in the House, I have been extremely concerned by the volume of secondary legislation and how the House considers it. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a scandal. Important obligations are created and extensive penalties sometimes imposed through the process of secondary legislation. As we all know, the House pays almost no attention to the content. Frequently, we cannot do so because it is the subject of the negative resolution procedure. Even when we can, because it is the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure, the debate is extremely short—normally 90 minutes—and one cannot amend the documents. One can simply hope that a draft is presented for discussion before the order is ultimately laid.
I admit that the Government of which I was a member used secondary legislation to a huge extent—all Governments do. The House should resist doing that. The paradox is that, if the Committee accepts the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and, as a consequence, improves how we consider and debate secondary legislation, it will be much more offensive to allow the courts to strike it down on the ground of incompatibility.
A serious constitutional issue is raised by the courts' ability to strike down any form of legislation—in this case, we are discussing secondary legislation—and that will probably be made greater if we do what we should do, which is fundamentally to overhaul how we consider and control secondary legislation.

Mr. Leigh: I must confess that I have difficulty with the arguments presented to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my

right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). They seem to be arguing that the fact that the House gives inadequate consideration to subordinate legislation is a good excuse for allowing judges to strike it down. If that is their contention, it is extraordinary. That is not a good excuse for allowing judges to strike down subordinate legislation.
If we are convinced that we are giving inadequate attention to subordinate legislation, surely the remedy lies in our hands: we should make the House less of a legislative sausage machine, and allow sufficient time to consider subordinate legislation. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows full well from his experience in government, currently that is impossible because we should have to meet not only all week, but all weekend, and we should have no recesses at all. In any event, much subordinate legislation is very technical and the House does not want to consider it. I do not accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
This is a dangerous precedent, because we are extending the remit of judges. We have made that point repeatedly in these debates. It may well be that striking down such legislation would not, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, produce a seismic shock in the constitution, and no doubt it would not be commented widely upon in the tabloid press. However, that does not negate the important principle that, for the first time, as I understand it—I may be wrong—judges will, at the stroke of a pen, be able to strike down legislation, albeit subordinate, of a sovereign Parliament. That is a development about which we should be considerably worried.
I have been trying to research these matters. There is one point that I do not understand in the otherwise excellent briefing supplied to us by the Library. It states:
Clause 3 is not intended to affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation, or any incompatible subordinate legislation if primary legislation prevents the removal of the incompatibility."
I confess that I find that concept difficult to understand. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain exactly what it means?
I note that subordinate legislation, as defined in clause 21, seems to relate to a great deal of legislation emanating from Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or measures of the Northern Ireland assembly. I wonder whether we are allowing judges to take a close interest in legislation that was passed by the former Stormont Parliament or which will be passed by the future Northern Ireland assembly. That is a small point, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to respond to it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for arguing the line he did, because it is important, and I followed it with great interest.
I am not clear whether the amendments deal primarily with an issue of great importance because of the underlying principle or because there could be major consequences in terms of the numbers of cases where the courts felt called on to consider subordinate legislation.


I do not know whether the Government, in putting forward the proposal in the Bill, had in mind the possibility of a flood of cases arising from subordinate legislation and thought that it would be impractical or difficult to bring them all back to Parliament on a signal from the judiciary that there was incompatibility and deal with them as the Bill proposes to deal with cases arising from primary legislation.
It is hard to decide whether to proceed with subordinate legislation in the same way that is proposed for primary legislation. That would open a huge Pandora's box. Because of the manner in which Parliament reviews secondary legislation, we are guilty of allowing inadvertently to be passed much that should not be passed. The wider constitutional points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield were well put, and I endorse them.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, but the point goes further than he has contemplated, because European Union legislation is directly incorporated into the United Kingdom by reason of the treaty. A great deal of subordinate legislation is simply EU legislation that is carried over and is not the subject of any discussion.

Mr. Maclennan: It is such thoughts that make me think that there may be a profound practical reason for accepting the present drafting of the Bill. That must make much stronger the case for the improvement of our scrutiny procedures. I hope that I am not straying out of order in dealing with this point—I think that it is germane to the issue under discussion. There is a problem of overload in this House. We are dispensing powers to other assemblies and Parliaments and we may consider the tasks that should be done in another place if it is reformed and democratised, so there will be plenty of work to be done by both Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding those significant changes, in ensuring that subordinate legislation does not risk running foul of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Hoon: The amendments would affect the powers of the courts in respect of subordinate legislation. Amendment No. 17 would amend clause 3(2)(c) so that, notwithstanding the interpretative provisions of clause 3, all incompatible subordinate legislation, rather than only inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation—that is, subordinate legislation that inevitably takes an incompatible form because of the terms of the primary legislation under which it is made—would have continuing force and effect.
Amendment No. 11 is consequential. It would amend clause 4(4)(b) so that the power to make a declaration would apply to all subordinate legislation, not only to inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation as at present.
Amendment No. 12 would insert an additional phrase into clause 4(4) to make it clear, in conjunction with amendment No. 17, that the courts could not strike down subordinate legislation. That, I hope, is a fair summary of the amendments.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised the issue Second Reading, and gave notice that he would return to it in Committee. The present debate gives me an opportunity to explain more fully why the Government disagree with the Opposition's view that the Bill confers on the courts a power in respect of subordinate legislation which differs in kind from that which they already possess. I shall also explain why the amendments would harm the Bill.
The twin starting points are, once again, the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of individuals' rights under the convention. The Government have decided that the courts should not be able to strike down primary legislation because of the special status that Acts of Parliament and various other measures enjoy. That special status is, of course, acknowledged by the existing powers of the courts. They cannot strike down Acts of Parliament because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
However, subordinate legislation can already be, and is, struck down by the courts in certain circumstances. The courts will review the exercise by a Minister of a power to make subordinate legislation, just as they will review the exercise by any public authority of a discretionary power. I emphasise that, because it may be their reluctance to take that on board that lies behind the Opposition's difficulties with the Bill on that point.
Subordinate legislation may be struck down as ultra vires when the making of the instrument in question is outside the scope of the enabling power. Such legislation may also be attacked on procedural grounds—for example, when the mandatory procedure for making it as set out in the parent statute has not been followed or, less commonly, on the ground that the discretion involved in making the relevant instrument has been exercised unreasonably.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister's argument is less good than he thinks it is. He is saying that the courts already have the power to strike down secondary legislation on the ground of ultra vires and under the Wednesbury principles. I understand that, but we are arguing about the courts having the power to strike down secondary legislation on the ground of incompatibility. That raises the question of merit, which goes beyond vires. Although there is a power to strike down secondary legislation, it is narrowly defined and usually applies to ultra vires or unreasonable acts, whereas the Bill gives the courts an ability to determine not just issues of vires but questions as to compatibility that are themselves issues of merit.

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with that point as I develop my argument in relation to the Bill. I hope that it is common ground between us that, if a Minister exercises an order-making power in a way that is not permitted by the parent Act, the courts should be able to disapply that order. I doubt that there is any dispute about that. In doing so, the courts would, in effect, be reinforcing the will of Parliament by ensuring that the Act that it approved was properly applied. In that sense, the courts would be upholding parliamentary sovereignty, by ensuring that the will of Parliament in primary legislation had been given effect. I hope that that point will be accepted.
Let me apply that argument to the Bill. If Parliament passes an Act that contains order-making powers that are capable of being exercised in a way that is compatible


with convention rights, what is the objection to providing that, if a Minister fails to exercise those powers consistently with those rights, the courts should be able to quash the instrument or set it aside? I cannot see what is wrong with that argument. Indeed, it is the absence of such a power with which I would have difficulty. The Human Rights Bill, if it is approved, will become an Act of Parliament, and it is perfectly reasonable to require that subordinate legislation be consistent both with the terms of its parent statute and with the Human Rights Act. That is what the Bill provides.
It is inherent in the public authority provisions in clause 6 that Ministers will be acting unlawfully if they make subordinate legislation that is incompatible with a convention right, unless the parent statute requires the subordinate legislation to take that form. I hope that that is the answer that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was seeking. If he reads clause 6(1), he will find that Ministers are under that duty. These provisions are wholly beneficial. If it is the will of Parliament that something should be done that is incompatible with a convention right, Parliament must be prepared to say so in primary legislation.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) raised the issue of subordinate legislation that is inevitably incompatible with convention rights. The nature of the primary legislation under which an order is made may be such that any subordinate legislation will necessarily be in conflict with convention rights. If the courts were to have the power to strike down such subordinate legislation, it would, at least indirectly, amount to a challenge to the primary legislation itself. That would place the courts at odds with Parliament. I could understand the concern of Conservative Members if the Human Rights Bill gave the courts the power to quash such subordinate legislation, but it does not do so. Clause 3(2)(c) makes that point abundantly clear.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that this provision will not have retrospective application?

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it will apply to legislation in force once the Human Rights Act is itself in force.
I hope that Conservative Members will accept that the amendments address an illusory concern. They are not needed to protect the sovereignty of Parliament. Indeed, without these provisions, the sovereignty of Parliament would be threatened, because we would not be able to give effect to parliamentary sovereignty and to the will of Parliament as expressed in primary legislation. The amendments would tie the hands of the courts and would weaken the protection that individuals receive from convention rights. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting debate, and we have had some good contributions from Conservative Members. Whatever view we may have of the merits of the process for scrutinising secondary legislation, we are united in our desire to express our zealousness in defending parliamentary sovereignty. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about ultra vires legislation. This point was anticipated if not in my opening speech, which may not have been sufficiently

clear, then certainly in the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who expressed the same view as I did, but more elegantly and more forcefully. The clause will allow the courts to strike down perfectly good subordinate legislation that is not ultra vires and has no procedural defects merely by considering its merits. The Bill is taking us into new territory. The courts will be able to examine the merits of legislation and to strike it down without reference to Parliament.
The Minister argues that the clause safeguards parliamentary sovereignty. We think that Parliament should be the judge of that. The matter should be subject to parliamentary sovereignty. To make our mark and to register our disapproval of this provision, we shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 324.

Division No. 291]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hague, Rt Hon William


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heald, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Body, Sir Richard
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Bums, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Butterfill, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Chope, Christopher
Letwin, Oliver


Clappison, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lidington, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Curry, Rt Hon David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maples, John


Evans, Nigel
Mates, Michael



Faber, David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fabricant, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forsythe, Clifford
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Greenway, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David






Sayeed, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Viggers, Peter


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wardle, Charles


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Swayne, Desmond
Woodward, Shaun


Syms, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Sir David Madel and Mr. Tim Collins.


Townend, John



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Austin, John
Coaker, Vernon



Ballard, Jackie
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cooper, Yvette


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beard, Nigel
Cotter, Brian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cranston, Ross


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crausby, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benton, Joe
Cummings, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brake, Tom
Denham, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Dismore, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Burnett, John
Efford, Clive


Burstow, Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ennis, Jeff


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Casale, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)



Chidgey, David
Foulkes, George





Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Galbraith, Sam
Livsey, Richard


Gapes, Mike
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas



Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gorrie, Donald
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew



Grogan, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gunnell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hancock, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harris, Dr Evan
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moore, Michael



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norri's, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn



Keetch, Paul
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rendel, David


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Salmond, Alex
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Salter, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Sanders, Adrian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sawford, Phil
Timms, Stephen


Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Skinner, Dennis
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Wallace, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Willis, Phil


Stevenson, George
Wills, Michael


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wyatt, Derek


Stringer, Graham




Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Noes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. John McFall.


Sutcliffe, Gerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

DECLARATION OF INCOMPATIBILITY

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 7, at end insert
`setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) A court may not make a declaration of incompatibility unless it is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter before it.'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 16, at end insert
'setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court'.

Mr. Garnier: We believe that clause 4 represents a collision point in the constitution. It does not merely represent a meeting between the supervisory code on human rights that we gain from the convention and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty; it represents a meeting between the powers of the courts and this place to instigate a parliamentary process of statutory change. Clause 4 empowers the courts—as defined in subsection (5)—to declare that primary legislation is incompatible with a convention right.
Clause 4 should be read in conjunction with clause 21, which defines primary legislation. According to that clause, "primary legislation" means any
public general Act…local and personal Act…private Act…Measure of the Church Assembly … Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England…Order in Council made under…the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973…Order in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative…and includes an order or other instrument made under primary legislation to the extent to which it operates to bring one or more provisions of that legislation into force or amends any primary legislation".
Subordinate legislation is also defined in clause 21, and was referred to in an earlier debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. and learned Friend has listed the measures that would be caught by the description "primary legislation". Will he tell us whether the matter has been debated by the General Synod, whether its views have been sought and whether they have been referred to the House? Surely that is a material issue, as the new law will apply to the whole body of law passed by the General Synod of the established Church.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right: that is a material question. Sadly, I do not know the answer, but other hon. Members who are past or present members of the General Synod may be able to help us.

Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this a stage further? Normally, matters pertaining to the Church of England that are to be debated in the House of Commons are brought before the Ecclesiastical Committee, for two reasons. First, the Committee is a joint Committee of both Houses; secondly, unlike the Synod, it contains not just members of the Church of England but members of other Churches, because it scrutinises legislation to see how it will affect other subjects of Her Majesty. Clearly, the Bill will have an effect on the Synod.
I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, but I have not received a note about the matter. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can find out whether the Committee has been able to debate it, and to decide whether it is content with the implications for the Church of England.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. He has immense experience of the affairs of the Church of England, and I was interested to hear that, although he no longer belongs to that Church, he continues to take a close interest in it. I suspect that my right hon. Friend will know better than I whether, in one or other of its various forums, the Church has been able to express a view on clause 4. The Minister, too, may have better information than I.
We must consider clause 4 in conjunction not just with clause 21, which defines primary legislation, but with clause 5, which gives the Crown—and, subject to amendments that we may or may not debate later in Committee stage, others—the right to intervene in court proceedings. If those amendments are accepted—strictly speaking, they are not germane to this debate-and if other interveners are given rights under clause 5, the Church of England and other affected bodies, as well as the Crown, may well be entitled to take an interest in a clause 4 question.


When considering the effect of clause 4 we must also consider clauses 10, 11 and 12, especially clause 12 (3)(a) and (3)(b), because they deal with remedial action—broadly, what Parliament will do in the event of a declaration of incompatibility under clause 4. Clause 12(3) states:
A remedial order (or draft) laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a statement containing—

(a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and
(b) a statement of the reasons why the person making it (or proposing to make it) considers an order in those terms appropriate."
The person making it would be the Minister. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are especially relevant when considering our amendments that deal with the beginning of the process—the making of a declaration by one of the courts that are listed in clause 4(5) in relation to primary legislation. We debated secondary legislation earlier, but we are now dealing with primary legislation.
I spoke deliberately about a collision point on the constitution because the Strasbourg system is invasive. From time to time, the European Court of Human Rights determines that some aspect of national law or practice is incompatible with a provision in the convention. The way in which human rights are protected in a country that adheres to the convention is no longer exclusively a matter of national sovereignty. In addition, the convention system has not stood still, and has constantly been adapted to bring it into line with contemporary notions of human rights protection—for example, through the introduction of new protocols.
In some Strasbourg court judgments it has been said that the convention represents
the public order of Europe
that it imposes objective obligations on the convention states for the protection of human rights in Europe and that the convention is evolving as Europe's constitutional Bill of Rights. Those are the words of the European Court judges, and they may ring alarm bells loudly for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and possibly in the massed ranks of Labour Members.
The convention is no longer seen as an international treaty that creates reciprocal arrangements between contracting states. It is increasingly being interpreted in line with the object and purpose rule—I am sure that the Committee knows all about that—in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties which was entered into in 1969 as Europe's constitutional Bill of Rights.
As I said in an intervention, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights over the past 30 to 50 years has been entirely candid in seeing the convention as a growing Bill of Rights for Europe. In the corporal punishment case affecting this country, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, in 1978, the court said that the convention was a living instrument and that it had to consider the standards of behaviour, morality and ethics that are accepted in contemporary European society, and not those that were applicable when the convention came into being in the early 1950s.
The line between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation may be increasingly breached. The amendments are intended to guard against that and to

prevent United Kingdom courts from going further than is warranted under our constitution. In view of the parliamentary arithmetic—a phrase which was used not long ago—there can be no doubt that the Bill will become an Act and that the convention, or at least those parts of it that are specified in the Bill, will be incorporated into British law. The amendments seek to limit the damage that we think may be done to our constitution if clause 4 is unamended. It has been said that the Bill would wreck our constitution, but I would not go that far.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech after the election, I said that I had no religious or principled objection to the introduction of the European convention on human rights into domestic British law. However, I remain worried that the procedures that we are adopting could damage the constitution, perhaps unintentionally. That underlines my argument on the amendments. I do not accuse the Government, at least on this occasion, of deliberately setting out to destroy the constitution, but we could make that charge stick on other occasions and we shall have an opportunity to do that.
As the Bill, amended or unamended, will become law, we must do all we can to ensure that the doctrine of the separation of powers, which underscores our constitution, is not put at risk. Our amendments are designed to protect the constitution and to prevent unwanted and perhaps unintended contests between Parliament and the courts. Why is that matter important and why are we determined to prevent the dangers that we expect would arise from an unamended clause?
The Minister does not always give me prizes for original thinking on political philosophy, and I do not think that he will give me a prize for suggesting that elected, accountable Members of Parliament, assembled in Parliament, are the proper persons to make the law, but that unelected, disinterested, unaccountable judges should interpret it. That is our system, and, under our constitution, the courts have no power to declare that an Act of Parliament is invalid.
The United States has an entirely different system. Under its system of judicial review, which is not to be confused with ours, federal judges—the constitutional judges in the Supreme Court—can strike down Acts of Congress if they believe that they contravene the United States constitution. We do not have that, and long may that position remain.
In an earlier debate, we briefly discussed secondary legislation. Because of the development of such legislation and the increasing use of regulation-making powers that are given to Ministers by statute—a matter which greatly concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—the courts have felt able to develop the scope of judicial review of administrative action. In some cases, that has led to political criticism of the judiciary when it pronounced on matters of social or political controversy.
Sadly—or perhaps not sadly—hon. Members and the editorials of newspapers are not slow to criticise judges when they make pronouncements with which we disagree. That is what we are entitled to do. We touched on that matter in a debate on the Scotland Bill two or three weeks ago, when we discussed the appointment or removal of Scottish judges and sheriffs under the new Scottish parliamentary system.
One of the points that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) brought out was that a judge could be criticised, for example, for overly lenient sentencing and hounded by a group of politicians for doing so. One does not have to go very far back in English political history to know that there have been criticisms of our judges by members of the Labour party and of the trade union movement, who were concerned that English judges were producing laws that were contrary to those members' interests.
8.30 pm
You, Sir Alan, may remember the cries of, "Tory judges are doing the Government's work," in the 1980s. Although that was no doubt a sincere and well-intended criticism—or perhaps an ill-intended criticism—it was wrong-headed because they were not Tory judges, but wholly disinterested politically. None of their judgments was based on their political opinions; they were based on an interpretation of the law, which happened to have been enacted under a Tory Government. The confusion is between Tory laws passed by a Tory Government with a majority in the House of Commons and the interpretation of those Tory laws by disinterested judges.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the great strength of our constitution is the fact that the judges have been and remain politically disinterested and separate? That is why people have so much confidence in the judges, despite what one occasionally hears from the Labour Benches. They are politically disinterested, and they realise that their job is to administer the law, not to make it.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why our amendments are so important. They will remove any doubt that may rest in the minds of those who know less about it than they should that the judges who make the declarations of incompatibility are motivated by anything other than a desire properly to interpret the statute law that is in front of them.
This is not a new problem. The tension between the two lives that I lead—one in the law and one in Parliament—is often referred to. It has been referred to by far more eminent lawyers than are here tonight, and I include myself in that. Trade union legislation in the early 1980s caused such alarm among the Labour party. You may remember, Sir Alan, the steel strike of the early 1980s, which led to all sorts of industrial action and then secondary industrial action. Laws were passed by the Conservative Government that made secondary action unlawful. It resulted in the case of Duport Steels v. Sirs.
When that case arrived at the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Diplock said this. I always like referring to cases in which Lord Diplock has contributed a judgment. He was a very intellectually rigorous man, but he was not without a sense of humour, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Lord Diplock was a keen follower of the foxhounds and had a horse called Circuit. When he was at the Bar and his clients rang up and asked, "Is Mr. Diplock available?" his clerk could legitimately say, "No. I'm afraid he is away on Circuit." I digress and I apologise for doing so.
I want to read just a small section of Lord Diplock's judgment in the Duport Steels case, because he well illustrates the points that inform my amendments:
at a time when more and more cases involving the application of legislation which gives effect to policies that are the subject of bitter public and parliamentary controversy, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers: Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them. When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the existing law (whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes or the unwritten common law as it has been expounded by the judges in decided cases), the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our constitution, it is Parliament's opinion on these matters that is paramount.
Those words are as true today as they were when they were uttered.

Mr. Leigh: I think that my hon. and learned Friend can add to his point and make it even more powerful. As he knows, in that case, the House of Lords was striking down a judgment by Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. Just as my hon. and learned Friend admires Lord Diplock, I admired Lord Denning. From my political viewpoint, I particularly admired a remark that he made in the Court of Appeal judgment in that case. He was dealing with that trade union dispute and said that it could have a
disastrous effect on the economy and well-being of the country".
As much as Conservative Members may admire what he said in those circumstances, the House of Lords acted properly. It struck down Lord Denning. He should not have been making a political point of that nature. That is the powerful point that Lord Diplock was making in that case.

Mr. Garnier: That is exactly right. That is why the Court of Appeal was overturned in that case. Both the point that my hon. Friend makes and the point that I am developing in support of our amendments show that, where one is dealing with the introduction of convention rights into domestic law, and where one is introducing something into our system of law, which traditionally has been concerned more with remedies and duties than rights, the courts are sometimes tempted to introduce the sort of language that the Court of Appeal heard from Lord Denning, which is impermissible under our constitution.
Parliament—this House and the other place—should have the first word and the last. I am positive that A. V. Dicey put it more elegantly than I have, but where we are putting the broad brush—I think that, as I am dealing with European matters, I am allowed to descend into purple prose—of the European convention across the canvas of our constitution, we should endeavour to paint a coherent picture.
I hope that the Minister enjoyed that because I want to remind him of something that Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, said in the other place on Second Reading of the Bill last November. It was a model speech,


if I may say so. It completely stripped bare the Lord Chancellor's arguments in favour of the Bill, and presented a thoroughly unmatched set of arguments. My noble Friend said that, if the Bill, became law—I paraphrase at the moment—it would be a defining moment in the life of our constitution, and as important in the history of our constitution as, for example, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. He said that all those matters
lie at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of the powers in our constitution, which has been the hallmark of our liberties throughout the centuries.
We should not scoff at the protection of our liberties under the constitution. Lord Kingsland suggested that the Lord Chancellor had gone for a hybrid of the New Zealand and Canadian models and that
he is not striking down the previous statute but is giving judges the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. He then gives Parliament the option to legislate not by full primary statute but by order in council.
I believe that that solution is constitutionally unacceptable for two reasons which I shall try to explain … In the Bill the courts of this country are not bound by the decisions of the court in Strasbourg.
He said that it is to have
persuasive but not obligatory effect. When a court in this country makes a declaration of incompatibility, it might be making a declaration which is not an accurate photograph of the law of the convention. Indeed, that option is expressly incorporated in the Bill. To the extent that a declaration of incompatibility does not reflect the true construction of the jurisprudence of the convention, the judges will be making a declaration about the making of new law, judge-made law. Indeed, they will be doing more than that. They will be initiating a legislative procedure in Parliament.
If that is what the clause proposes, it will introduce something that we should be well aware of, and we should do something about it. Clause 4(2) says:
If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
Amendment No. 15 proposes to add these words immediately afterwards:
setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court
so that, when the declaration of incompatibility is made by the court, the Government—who will have to introduce a remedial order—will know precisely why the court has found that the Act is incompatible with the convention rights.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is important that the Government know that. May I suggest that it is more important that the people should know? This is an unusual mechanism—like him, I do not have too extreme a view of it—and some Labour Members appear to agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the change in the constitution. There are a lot of people outside who will be at least suspicious about the matter. Therefore, the Committee should accept nothing less if we want those people to accept the system.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend is right to pull me up. Of course it is the people who have the right to know. I was thinking, naively, that the Government actually took account of the interests of the people. I was mistaken, and I apologise for being such a silly billy. This Government

were described as "unusually tyrannical" in the other place by Lord Simon of Glaisdale—not a man given to hyperbole.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to pull me up. We purport to represent the people in this place—I do not know what the Government think they are doing. They seem to pay precious little attention to what the people care about. [Interruption.] I will not be diverted by grumblings from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is not a noted constitutional lawyer as far as I am aware.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady must not assume that she has the Floor until it has been conceded to her by the Member she is seeking to interrupt.

Fiona Mactaggart: I apologise, Sir Alan, for misreading the body language of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The point that was being made before I attempted to intervene was about representing the people. I have never suggested to anyone that I am an eminent lawyer; I have never sought to play such a role. However—like the Labour party—I have listened to and represent the people of Slough, which is why we are implementing such a substantial and important change in the Bill.

Mr. Garnier: I think that I may have been mistaken not to conceal my body language. After that intervention, I shall keep my body language to myself.
My noble Friend Lord Kingsland identified the constitutional danger posed by clause 4, which would allow judges to introduce a legislative initiative. I think that amendment No. 15 goes some way in dealing with the concerns expressed by my noble Friend, which are also felt by very many people in the United Kingdom.
When introducing a convention conferring rights—the interpretation of which has been subject to argument and debate in Strasbourg and in the domestic courts of nations that are amenable to the convention, and still no exactitude has been provided—into a system of law that has until now been concerned more with remedies and duties, it is vital that Parliament should tell, the courts what we expect of them.
On 3 November 1997, the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading:
the Bill is carefully drafted and designed to respect our traditional understanding of the separation of powers.
That is undoubtedly a worthy sentiment. However, as the Lord Chancellor has also said that his legal aid reforms are designed to "increase access to justice", we should be very careful of sentiment emanating from that noble mouth.
The Lord Chancellor said:
The design of the Bill is to give the courts as much space as possible to protect human rights, short of a power to set aside or ignore Acts of Parliament."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1228.]
We have tabled this group of amendments to restrict the space within which Parliament allows the courts to operate, not to inhibit the courts from protecting human


rights. We fear that, without the amendments, the courts will increasingly push at the boundaries between the judiciary and Parliament, which would so upset the pertaining balance.
Under the Bill, the courts will take on a new role. Hon. Members must be careful before ceding our powers to initiate legislation to the courts. If we are to have clause 4 declarations, they must be explicit, capable of withstanding scrutiny and public explanation, and in such a form that they can sensibly inform the process that the Bill envisages in clause 12(3).
If we are to have remedial orders, they must work in concert with the final judicial wording of the declarations of incompatibility. To do otherwise would merely add to the tension that will come to exist between this place and the courts. Although it is important that there is a creative tension between them, it is vital that the Bill should not allow a destructive tension to build up.
I suggest that passing the amendments would relieve the constitution of a potential danger—one which would act to the detriment of our constituents.

Mr. Gummer: I shall not detain the Committee long, but I believe that the amendment is of considerable importance because of the need to explain to the public as a whole the effects of this new situation.
I am unhappy about the concept of rights; I happen to believe that we have obligations, and that in our obligations lie other people's rights—as a matter of fact, I do not think, philosophically, that created beings can have rights. It is a pity that we have not understood the distinction, which we have never before had in our laws. We have always seen that there is a matter of duties and obligations, and that has been the key to our handling of the sort of issues with which the European convention is concerned. However, because it is a European convention, it is heavily influenced by the works of Tom Paine and the French revolution, and papal reinterpretation of that in the latter part of the 19th century. One clearly sees that stretch of attitude in the way in which the convention is framed.

Mr. Maclennan: Would it not be historically more accurate to acknowledge the debt owed to the works of Jesuit priests and writers such as Hugo Grotius, Vitoria and others in the long Catholic European tradition, going right back to the laws of nature, which recognised rights?

Mr. Gummer: It would be possible to acknowledge that, but it would be contrary to the truth. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the fact that, until the end of the 19th century, the Catholic position was quite clear: rights were not possible for a created being; a created being had obligations, and those obligations conferred rights on others, because others were able to depend on his carrying out those obligations and to expect that he would do so.
The matter is not merely semantic, because the problem arises that the attitude towards rights that is so marked a result of the changes in the 19th century has affected Britain rather differently from the rest of Europe. As an enthusiastic supporter of our close connection with the rest of Europe, I believe that we can offer others some things where we are different and where our long history gives us a certain amount of experience that they do not

have. One of those aspects of our history is the long stability that we have enjoyed in this country, but that has not been the experience of many of our neighbours.
Part of that stability arises from the division of powers. Therefore, if we are going to, at the very least, narrow that division, it is important that, on the occasions when that happens, the reason is clear to the public. The public have respect for judges, but do not expect judges to make the law; they have no respect for Members of Parliament, but do expect Members of Parliament to make the law. That distinction is important. On this occasion, we are allowing judges to come closer to making the law than they do in any other circumstance. That is the crucial issue.
Having read the debates in another place, I should have thought that the Government would want to make sure that their promise there would be carried through. They said there that they wished to make this new excursion as compatible as possible with our historic separation of powers.
I hope that the Government will not feel that that there is any way an unpleasantness about the amendment or that it should be overruled merely because the Government have a majority. I should have thought that the Government would not find an amendment that asks that courts give a clear statement of why they find a measure incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights one on which to divide the Committee. It seems to me that everyone could agree on the matter—not just so that the Minister would find it easier to frame amending legislation, but so that the public should be easier in their minds that the judges have acted properly and constitutionally within the framework laid down by Parliament. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as a result of that first point.
Secondly—although less importantly, as the public are most at risk of feeling that the change is not one of which they are assured—I hope that the Government will see the amendment as their defence. As things happen to be, it is likely that this Government will be in power on the first occasion—probably within the next three or four years—on which the provision operates. If it takes place after that, this Government will not have to make a decision. Ministers will surely want to know, not least on that first occasion, precisely what this is all about; what the judges are getting at; how narrowly amending legislation can be drawn.
Let us imagine circumstances in which the Government managed to pass a measure that had been hard fought against as it went through the House. Let us imagine that the Opposition had tabled amendments pointing to the incompatibility of some measure that the Government were proposing. Let us think that, in a heated moment, the Government had said very clearly that the Opposition were wrong and that the measure was not contrary to the effects of the European Convention on Human Rights. Let us think that the debate continued along that line and that, in the end, the majority ruled and the Government got their way. In those circumstances, the Government would want to be quite sure that, if the judges struck down the measure, they had the best ground for being able to eat their words. They would like to be able to say to the Opposition, "Well, what you said was not generally true, although it appears that, in a particular case, there was some truth in it."
I do not want the Government to feel that they must overcompensate for what has been mistaken. In other words, if the courts struck down, or appeared to strike down, some decision of the House, the Government would want to make as small an alteration as is compatible. How could they do that unless they knew precisely why the courts had struck down the matter? I do not know why I am busy defending the Government—except that we shall inherit the matter thereafter. However, the Government need to be defended from a position in which they will have to make the remedy but will not know how widely that remedy will have to run.
That brings me to the third point. I want to defend not only the Government but all other hon. Members. The Minister is a very honourable Member, and will no doubt seek, if the task falls to him, to bring in as narrow a change as absolutely necessary. However, others will be less scrupulous, and will say to themselves, "We do not want to get mixed up with those courts any more, so let us go as far as it could be thought that the courts might expect us to, and get out of the problem in future." Unless we insist upon the detailed amendment, the Government could propose to amend the legislation far beyond what would be necessary if there were a more particular statement of what the courts were concerned about.
There are therefore three reasons why I believe it necessary for us to carry the amendment into law—the defence of the people so that they know where they are, the defence of the Government so that they know where they are, and the defence of the House, to ensure that its will is not gainsaid by one iota or scintilla more than is absolutely necessary to meet the obligations that the convention lays upon it.
9 pm
Those should be views commonly held on both sides of the Committee. I see nothing in them that could possibly be thought party political. However, my last point is party political. One of the problems with judges is that they share the human frailty of seeking always to move as far as their powers allow. We all tend that way. All assemblies move to become Parliaments; all Parliaments seek greater power; courts are rarely satisfied with the restrictions laid upon them. I believe it is necessary to ensure that our courts do not gain an appetite for what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) described as the attitudes of the European Courts of Human Rights and of Justice and of other courts in individual nations in the European Union and beyond.
That is why the amendment is necessary for the good of the courts, as well as for the good of the Government, the good of the people and the good of the House. I believe that the courts' natural appetite for the extension of their powers should be restrained, and the only one body that can so restrain them is the House. That is the nature of the separation of powers.
Therefore, the Committee owes it to the courts to be clear in the way that it legislates today and throughout the further stages of the Bill. We must be clear, and we can do that only if we insist that the courts be clear, for in their clarity will be their restriction. Because they have to say in detail what they find incompatible, they will not be

able to stretch their powers beyond the degree to which we—of necessity, if the Bill is passed—will have to increase them.
That is why I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is reasonable and would be for the good of many of Her Majesty's subjects.

Mr. Maclennan: I am sorry to have to say that I did not find the speech by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) compelling in its history, its philosophy, its politics or its law. It finished with a rather curious, although not entirely frontal, attack on the judiciary, suggesting that they were institutionally engaged in self-aggrandisement.
That is a caricature of how our judiciary perform. It is evident that our judges are extremely careful not to trespass on the role of Parliament. Indeed, they made it plain before the Bill was introduced that, although they broadly favour the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, they would prefer at this stage in the development of our constitutional thinking not to be given a power to strike down in a simple and straightforward way legislation that they consider incompatible.
The Bill represents a novel approach to the incorporation of a Bill of Rights, and its construction owes a great deal to the judicial restraint of the highest judges in the country—including Lord Bingham and many others—who publicly spoke in favour of incorporation and advised that they should not be empowered like the Supreme Court in the United States simply to strike down incompatible legislation. The attack on the judiciary by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was very wide of the mark.
I do not see how the language of the amendments would do anything to achieve what they seem to be intended to achieve. They are not lapidary in their clarity; indeed, they could create a source of great argument and confusion. It would have been one thing if the amendments had stated simply that the declaration of incompatibility should be accompanied by reasons—one might then have been able to understand what was in the minds of those Conservative Members who tabled them—but they are couched in rather serpentine language.
Amendment No. 15 would insert the words
setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court".
Almost every phrase of that could give rise to argument—barrack-room lawyers would argue about whether the judges, in making a declaration of incompatibility, had conformed precisely with the terms suggested by amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
It is clearly the case that a declaration of incompatibility would be a constitutionally solemn decision, which the courts would not take lightly or ill advisedly. I believe that the courts would take such a decision very rarely as, like Parliament, judges have, in developing common law, broadly assumed that it was the will of the British people that our obligations under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights should be observed. It is a natural construction—an a priori view—that Parliament has not legislated inadvertently to breach the convention's provisions, so I believe that a declaration of incompatibility would be prayed in aid only rarely. To suggest that there is any


automaticity in the provision—that there is an automatic triggering of legislation as a result of the declaration of incompatibility—is to misrepresent the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: As the right hon. Gentleman said, of course Parliament does not legislate knowingly to be incompatible with the convention, but the convention and the European Court move on and what might have been compatible in the past is no longer compatible. That is why there might be rather more cases coming before the European Court than he might imagine.

Mr. Maclennan: We shall see, but I doubt it. I do not doubt that cases will be brought before the European Court praying in aid the convention rights, but they will stem not from defective legislation or parliamentary activity, but more from the executive actions of public authorities.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal implied that a declaration of incompatibility bordered on a legislative provision. That is a distortion of language. First, it is quite plain that the Bill provides a permissive power to make a declaration of incompatibility. The court is not required to make such a declaration. Clause 4(2) allows the court to make such a declaration. Secondly, such a declaration does not require the Government to introduce legislation under clause 10. That also is permissive. So to suggest that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism that could be fired and in some way diminish the role of the executive arm of government and the scrutiny of Parliament is to fail to appreciate the checks and balances that have been carefully written into a remarkable Bill.
The Bill is remarkable because it fulfils the need to provide a remedy quickly in order to avoid the injustices that would flow from a court finding an incompatibility with the European convention and the remedy depending on Strasbourg because of the difficulty of finding legislative time to introduce primary legislation to overturn the incompatible measure. The Bill has neatly tackled that problem, and in so doing has safeguarded the justice of our system without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.

Mr. Gummer: Has not the right hon. Gentleman now disproved his previous contention? He suggests that the reason for the particular arrangements under the Bill is to enable the remedy to be applied very quickly if a court declares a measure to be incompatible. Obviously, he expects that, if a court declares a Bill to be incompatible, there will be a speedy remedy. I suggested not that that gave the courts the ability to rule, but that it was adjacent to ruling, because it is likely that Parliament would find it almost impossible not to apply that remedy. Therefore, has not the right hon. Gentleman proved that what I said was strictly accurate?

Mr. Maclennan: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not made his case very effectively. It is quite plain that, if a court makes a formal declaration of incompatibility, it will do so advisedly because it considers the matter to be sufficiently important to trigger the mechanism if the executive arm of government and Parliament consider that it is appropriate to respond to it. It would make such a

declaration only if there were an issue of some importance that required remedy. Otherwise, it is not obliged to make a declaration—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Garnier: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's body language suggested that I was being invited to intervene, and I am grateful to him for that.
The difficulty that the Bill presents is that the procedure begins in clause 19. That is where the Minister makes a statement of compatibility. A litigant might take a matter to court, and if the court agreed with him, it would then make a declaration under clause 4. Even before that, there is the potential for dispute between the Executive—whether within Parliament or without—and the court. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed many points, but not that one.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman understood my body language and I understood his, but I confess that I did not understand the point that he was making. I am a little nonplussed by it and I apologise for my failure to comprehend.
I believe that the amendments were devised to make a political point—a constitutional point, which in itself is quite important. Those who want to amend the Bill do not want the right of Parliament to deliberate, in the manner to which we are accustomed, curtailed or changed by an act of the judiciary. That is an important issue that should be discussed. However, the language in the amendment can cause nothing but confusion. Therefore, I hope that it will be resisted.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I intend to do my level best to encourage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to make an even more robust rejection of the proposal to incorporate the convention into UK law.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that we share some confusion—having both been active in another place—about the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Even greater confusion is caused by the fact that, for part of the year, the European Court of Human Rights meets in the same place as the European Parliament. The public are greatly confused by that.
I vigorously support amendment No. 15. I am concerned about the impact that the convention, and particularly clause 4, will have on primary legislation. In view of the Bowman judgment, it is clear that, if the convention had already been incorporated into UK law, the courts would be seeking to repeal part of the Representation of the People Act. That is one of the questions that we should consider.
I regret the intrusiveness and invasiveness of clause 4, and the impact—particularly following the Bowman judgment—that the convention will have when we adopt it into our political, electoral and judicial systems. The Strasbourg system is definitely invasive, and new legislation will have to be deemed Strasbourg-proof before we can adopt it, or we will have a plethora of court



cases. Will the Government tell us what mechanism they envisage using to prepare future legislation in a Strasbourg-proof way?

Mr. Hoon: I can deal with that point now. The previous Government ensured for eight years or so that draft legislation was consistent with the terms of the convention. Clause 6 is also absolutely clear. Procedures are already in place, and they will be strengthened by the Bill's passage.

Miss McIntosh: I am not sure that I am convinced by that answer, but I am grateful to the Minister.
What concerns me most about clause 4 is that courts will be able to determine in future that some aspects of national law are incompatible with the convention. I am sure that the Government—the listening Government, the people's Government, they tell us—will appreciate that that could occur in politically sensitive areas, such as prisons, immigration and administrative matters, including judicial review. They may regret their proposal to incorporate the convention in United Kingdom law in toto.
The amendment should be welcomed, because it would ensure that judges would say specifically why they believed any primary legislation to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The amendment would also give judges a clear indication that declarations of incompatibility should not be issued unless required to resolve a particular case before the court. I hope that the judge—I mean the Minister; I did not mean to elevate him to another Bench—will comment on that when he winds up.
I do not mean to denigrate the judiciary in any way, but a substantial period will be needed if it is to adapt to its new responsibilities under clause 4. Similar problems were experienced in 1973 when the treaty of Rome was introduced to the UK. Courts and practitioners applying European law for the first time needed a substantial period to be educated—for want of a better word—on the impact of the treaty on the interpretation of legislation.
I am delighted to say, Mr. Martin, that Scotland led the way in that regard, particularly through Professor J. D. B. Mitchell, of whom I had the great honour to be a student. We led the way because constitutional law courses in Scotland implemented a vigorous education for budding practitioners at an early stage. Present practitioners do not have that experience.

Mr. Hoon: Was the hon. Lady happy with how the treaty of Rome was incorporated into UK law?

Miss McIntosh: It might be more appropriate to comment on that on some other occasion, as we have more pressing matters to discuss this evening. Perhaps the Minister would like to discuss it with me at greater length in one of the parliamentary bars, so that we do not take up the Committee's time.
I commend the amendment to the Committee, and hope that the Government might be minded to support it.

Mr. Malins: First, I declare an interest. I am a recorder of the Crown court and, for some years, I have been an

acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, so I have a great deal of judicial experience behind me. That has enabled me to realise that, when I sit judicially, it is my job to apply the law, whereas in this House it is our job to make the law. It is terribly important to understand and to maintain those differences.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I was vehement in my opposition to the principle of the Bill. I said that the danger was that it would effectively give the judges of this country powers to make law, whereas their job is to interpret it.
The right hon.Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was a little unkind to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he accused him of launching an attack on the judiciary. My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He was rightly pointing to the different roles of the judiciary and Parliament, and saying that he feared that we might move towards a stage when the judiciary began to overlap into the fields that belong principally to Members of this House. He went no further—indeed, he was generous in his remarks about the judiciary.
Clause 4 is the cutting edge of the Bill. It is the point where the convention will bite in particular litigation to enable the litigant to invite the judge to come to a conclusion different from that which he would have reached but for the convention. Thus the amendments, and the clause generally, are extremely important. I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I see hon. Members who I know have reasonable attitudes. I shall not name them, but a number are known to be sensible thinkers about these matters. If they listen to our arguments carefully, as I can see they are doing, they will inevitably take them on board, and are likely to support us later tonight.
The past is in the past, and I must accept that my opposition to the Bill on Second Reading was not enough to carry the House on that occasion—not enough hon. Members took the same view. I said then, and I repeat tonight, that the roles of the judiciary and the legislature are, and should remain, entirely different. We must deal with the method by which the Government seek to give practical effect to the convention in English law. Having accepted the will of the House, it is important for me carefully to examine the problem, and to argue my corner about how best to give practical effect to the convention in our law.
Surely we can all agree on the need for clarity rather than obscurity and confusion when choosing the method of giving effect to the convention. The Bill's method is to enable the judge to make a declaration of incompatibility between a provision of existing domestic law and a convention provision. There is no reason in principle why that provision of domestic law should be a statutory provision or a provision of delegated legislation; it could well refer to common law. I add that a declaration of incompatibility may occur between a provision of existing domestic law and a convention provision as already interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
9.30 pm
The amendments, particularly amendment No. 15, ask the court properly to particularise the incompatibility. I hope to show why that is not only desirable but


absolutely essential. Let us take a simple law case. It may arise under existing landlord and tenant or employment legislation—it matters not.
Let us say that landlord and tenant legislation provides that a three-week period is reasonable notice for a change in the relationship between the parties. Suppose the court, on hearing argument, finds that the three-week period fails adequately to safeguard one or more convention rights. It would be unhelpful—indeed, arguably, faintly ludicrous—for the judge simply to say that and go no further. The judge should perhaps say what period would be a sufficient safeguard.
One can think of Revenue cases, particularly those concerning penalty time limits, in which such a point might be highly relevant. In my hypothetical case, it is no good the judge simply issuing a declaration of incompatibility and saying that three weeks is not long enough: he must go further.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the hon. Gentleman, in making that suggestion, inviting the judge to usurp the legislative function and say what should be done? That is very much a matter for the House.

Mr. Malins: As I continued to explore that argument, I asked myself that very question. Was I in fact suggesting that the judge should move into the legislative sphere? However, that is not my point. My point is that the judge should not simply issue the declaration of incompatibility but give much more explanation, so that the House and others know what the judge considers the problem to be.
In my example of the three-week period in the relationship under landlord and tenant law on which the judge issues a declaration of incompatibility, such a statement is not enough. For example, what would the House do when faced with such a simple declaration of incompatibility? Would it remedy the point by substituting four, five or six weeks, only to have the same or a different judge saying later that that was not long enough?
The law should not be a game of ping-pong between the courts and the elected House of Commons. There is a danger that that will happen unless the amendments are accepted.
Here is an example of the problem as it currently exists. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, a limitation clause in a contract may limit damages to £100,000, and the judge may strike it down as unreasonable. It could be argued that the unjustness in that case arises because we gave no power or duty to the judge to substitute a reasonable figure. Once the limit is judged unreasonable, the contract contains no limit: there is unlimited liability.
There is no obligation on the judge in such a case to tell the parties what would be a reasonable provision, and thus enable them to plan their future affairs properly. We cannot allow such a situation to exist. The amendments are right, and the judge must be required to state what aspect of the provision is incompatible and to what degree. The judge should produce a fully particularised judgment, so that people know why he or she has come to such a conclusion. The parties—the people of this country if it is a common law point, and the House of

Commons if it is a statutory point—should know exactly how to alter their respective affairs or the law so as to comply with the convention.

Mr. Hoon: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but some of them are a little far-fetched. Can he contemplate a decision by any of the courts listed in clause 4(5) that does not give carefully particularised reasons for the finding of incompatibility?

Mr. Malins: If the Bill had stated that, the Opposition would not have tabled the amendment. The clause provides that the court
may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
We want to add the words
setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court".
The Minister asked whether I. could imagine a case in which the court would not fully particularise the matter in such detail and with such observations.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister has at least done the House a service. Under Pepper v. Hart, a Minister's words—especially such a distinguished Minister as the hon. Gentleman—can be used by the courts to interpret the intentions of Parliament. Although the Minister will instruct his minions to vote down this sensible amendment, he has just said, in effect, that the courts should do precisely what the amendment would require them to do.

Mr. Matins: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. It is all very well the Minister sitting there smiling, but this is a serious point, because people outside the House will take note of what is said in this debate. The Minister asked me whether I could envisage a case in which the court did not issue a fully particularised and detailed view on the matter. That requirement is not in the Bill, and the Minister's words may come back to haunt him. He seems to have accepted the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Grieve: I can think of a number of judgments of superior courts, including the House of Lords, which, while dealing with a precise point that had arisen before them, provided no guidelines on how the law might be complied with. That is precisely the point that the amendment is designed to address.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend, who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), has a distinguished career in the law, again makes a valid point. Conservative Members are afeared that the Bill means what it says. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but it says that a declaration of incompatibility will be issued.
I have been asked whether I could imagine a situation in which such a declaration would not be full, covering all the points of the amendment. If the Minister is saying that he is absolutely certain that its spirit and wording would be observed in practice, we should be happy to hear it, but that is not in the Bill, which is why we are advancing these arguments.
I must make a few concluding remarks, because the thrust of my arguments has, I hope, become clear. It has certainly become clear to me. Our amendments would


help to prevent, or certainly discourage, judges from pushing for changes in our law that were not strictly necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to that danger, and it lies ahead. The amendments would also discourage judges from getting involved in the political arena too much, and pressure groups from pushing too hard to open up a whole field in any particular case.
It must be clear to Labour Members that the Minister has, by his words tonight, effectively accepted our amendment. Therefore, I am sure that, having heard the arguments, he will accept it and bring his colleagues with him into the Lobby with us. if he does, and if he recognises our concerns, we shall be satisfied.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The clause goes to the heart of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was absolutely right to say that it is a collision point; I regard it as a recipe for permanent conflict between Parliament and our courts. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's assertion and encourage him to go further in attacking the Government. He said that he acquitted them of seeking to destroy the constitution through the Bill. He is a reasonable man, which is a reason why he advanced that case. I am not of such charitable disposition.
As I have said previously in the House, I believe that the Bill is one of a series of measures—on Scotland, the Welsh Assembly and the proposals for the European Parliament—that strike at the constitution. A constitutional arrangement that has served the people of Britain well is being systematically destroyed. That owes much to the vanity of the Prime Minister. He has no great economic issue to fight, because that was done by the Conservatives over 18 glorious years; therefore, he has turned his attention to wrecking the constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said that people outside the Chamber would listen to the debate with great interest. I am afraid that he was joking, because our debates on the great constitutional issues, which affect the people of this country, are not being reported. We need only look to see the number of journalists taking careful note of what is said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to say that the people have an interest in constitutional measures, but those issues are not being brought to their attention. As the Minister knows, people are much more interested in the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) knows, I played a small part—I should be the first to acknowledge that that is an important issue, but it is not half as important as the issues that we are debating.
Consider the relative coverage that constitutional issues have been given by the media: Gazza, and Ginger Spice leaving the Spice Girls have commanded acres of coverage. One day, the people of Britain will wake up, and will see that all these changes are being made to our constitution.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the amendment. The matters to which he is referring have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Howarth: You are very kind, Mr. Martin, but I am trying to draw attention to the importance of the issue. I think that what I am saying is pertinent to the amendment, which requires the courts, if they seek to strike down legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with a convention right, to give reasons for doing so. I think that such questions should be aired to a much wider public than they are now.
The Bill strikes at the heart of the concept of the separation of powers. I do not share the benign, indeed complacent, view of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). He does not think it possible that judges would seek to challenge Parliament—but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, judges are human beings like the rest of us. As I think my right hon. Friend said, they have a natural appetite for the extension of their powers, and that should be constrained.
In this place, we should anticipate what might come to pass. There are enough eminent lawyers around—I single out just two, George Carman and Geoffrey Robertson—who quite enjoy the limelight. I cast no aspersions on them, of course—not tonight, anyway—but I think that, if the Bill becomes law, we could well be faced with a new breed of judge, who would seek—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. He is trying to engage in a Second Reading debate, but, as he must know, there are amendments before the Committee, and he must zero in on them.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Martin.
We have been discussing the separation of powers, and how the amendments relate to it. My point is that there is a grave danger that the courts will seek to exercise new powers that the Bill confers on them. The amendments merely require them to explain why they seek to strike down laws enacted by this sovereign Parliament.

Mr. Gummer: May I return my hon. Friend to the subject of the amendment? Its purpose, surely, is specifically to constrain the human condition. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) took it so personally; I merely said that we were all heir to the same danger—the danger of wanting greater rather than lesser powers. That seems manifestly true to me, and the amendment would enable us to restrain such powers in an elegant but important way.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend has made his case eloquently, and he is entirely right. I hope that the complacency of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will be noted, because I think it extremely dangerous. It should be made clear that, unless the amendment is accepted, the courts may seek to overthrow the rights of our Parliament.
In October last year, in an interesting article in The Times, Sir Brian Cubbon—formerly Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—wrote:
The redress of grievances has been a traditional role of the House of Commons. The Bill would shift that responsibility to the courts over the whole field of what are called human rights in the European


Convention. This goes far beyond the present scope of judicial review … Rights under the convention cover many of the grievances which MPs receive from their constituents about public authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking said that pressure groups, having failed to impress their case on Parliament, might seek to come not to this place but to the courts, where they will argue their case in the hope that they will enable the judges to strike down laws that were enacted by Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) wishes to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude by saying that Mr. Francis Bennion, an eminent constitutional lawyer, has said that the Bill is neither a mirror image of the Strasbourg convention nor free standing, and could enable the courts not to reflect the Strasbourg convention but to interpret it in their own way. Will judges be required to interpret the laws of the land as being consistent with the European convention on human rights or will they be free to develop their own law? It is important to establish that.
The amendment is modest, and the Minister has acknowledged the case for it. If he agrees with its thrust, accepting it will do him no harm, and will clearly show the public exactly what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Grieve: I do not wish it to be thought that the only speeches supporting the amendments came from those who, on broad principle, were against the Bill. As I think the Minister knows, I support incorporation, although there are some matters that I wish to scrutinise and criticise during the passage of the legislation. I appreciate the point, which I am sure the Minister will make, that one would normally expect a court, when pronouncing on a question of incompatibility, to set out the nature and the extent of that incompatibility as it arises from the nature of the case that is before the court. In principle, that is what one would expect, but, in my experience, courts occasionally do not do that. It is an indispensable prerequisite to Parliament being able to make an objective and correct judgment on incompatibility and on how it wishes to proceed for that decision to be made here.
One of the anxieties that has been expressed at length during consideration of the Bill and with which I broadly disagree, although I understand its nature, is that the courts will start to substitute themselves for Parliament in ensuring the freedoms of the people. As I have said, this legislation will work and will go down in history as being great if it is subsequently perceived that Parliament and the courts are working in tandem to achieve good human rights in accordance with the convention and its incorporation in our national law. It follows that, if primary legislation is considered to be incompatible with the terms of the Bill and the incorporated convention—an event which, I hope, will rarely occur—we should be clear about what the court has said is the problem, and there should be public consideration of the matter.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is not written in stone. On occasions, Parliament, having considered the matter carefully, might decide that, notwithstanding what has been said, it wishes to derogate from the court's decision, for sound public policy reasons. I hope that it would not have to do that, but it might. It seems that little would be lost by including amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which relate to subordinate legislation, and that something might be gained, although I would understand the

Minister saying, "Normally, I would expect this to be dealt with without any specific reference to it being made." Nevertheless, if no harm would result from including the amendment—I do not see what harm would result—it could properly be put in the Bill.
The matter is somewhat different in respect of amendment No. 103. It requests that a court should not make a declaration of incompatibility
unless it is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter before it.
I had some hesitation about that when I first considered it, because what the courts may say in obiter parts of their judgment is important for lawyers in respect of similar cases, but it would still be open to a court to reveal in the course of a judgment its anxiety over some passage relating to a case not before it, without making a declaration of incompatibility that did not relate to the matter before it.
I do not think that the amendment will fetter a court's ability to make obiter pronouncements suggesting that, in some other respect, something that it is considering may not be compatible with the convention. I therefore ask the Minister to consider that amendment as well, although I would be not be as worried about it not being made as I would be about the other two amendments not being accepted.

Mr. Hoon: I agree with Opposition Members to this extent. Clause 4 is central to the careful compromise that the Government propose in the Bill—a compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and the need to give proper effect to the European convention. However, the Government will resist the Opposition amendments because they will unnecessarily disturb the careful balance that the Government have sought to establish.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would require a court making a declaration of incompatibility to set out the nature and extent of the incompatibility in so far as that arose from the nature of the case before the court. It is important to remind the Committee of what the court will do when it makes a declaration of incompatibility by virtue of clause 4.
By virtue of clause 3, the court will have done everything possible to find an interpretation of the relevant legislation that is compatible with the convention rights. If one of the courts that is specified in clause 4 is satisfied that it is simply not possible to find a compatible interpretation, it will be able to say so formally by means of a declaration of incompatibility. That is most likely to have followed the procedure that is set out in clause 5 giving the Crown the right to intervene.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I believe that his description of courts suggested that they would pronounce on incompatibility almost at the drop of a hat. There will be a vigorous contest before a court, and both sides of the argument will be extensively debated and discussed before that court reaches a decision. As I have said in an intervention, it will be obvious that the matter has been explored in considerable detail and, clearly, one of the higher courts that are set out in clauses 4 and 5 will be required to explain in some detail the reasons for issuing the declaration.
A declaration of incompatibility will be a statement that, in the court's view, there is a problem with a piece of legislation in terms of its compatibility with the


convention, and it is not open to the court itself to rectify or to make good the legislation. That may happen because a Government may have deliberately provided in a Bill that it is not to be open to the court to strike down primary legislation. That course of action could have been considered by the Government when making our proposals. As we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), that approach is adopted in some countries when dealing with such measures. Nevertheless, the Government decided that, in the interests of maintaining parliamentary sovereignty, that would not be the course we would commend to Parliament.
Interestingly, great stress was placed on parliamentary sovereignty in our earlier discussions, but there has been a curious absence of it in this debate. We have placed parliamentary sovereignty at the centre of the proposals and we have not allowed the courts to strike down legislation. By enabling the courts to make a declaration of incompatibility, the situation can be brought to the notice of Parliament and the deficiency subsequently rectified by Parliament, whether by primary legislation or by approving a remedial order. That allows Parliament precisely the opportunity for which Opposition Members have been arguing. I am sorry that they have not accepted that during my comments.
10 pm
Perhaps I should turn in more detail to the formulation offered in amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I doubt whether a requirement on the court to explain the "nature and extent" of the incompatibility would add anything to the Bill, from anyone's point of view. As the Bill stands, I would expect a court, when making a declaration, to explain what the difficulty was and why it had been impossible to overcome it by constructive interpretation of clause 3. How the declaration arose would be apparent from the judgment as a whole.
A legislative provision will be either compatible or incompatible. The idea that it is possible for a court to certify the extent of the incompatibility is patent nonsense—forgive me for putting it so brutally. It is not possible to certify the extent of an incompatibility. There is either a breach of the convention or there is not. That part of the amendments is patently absurd. There will not be degrees of incompatibility, or any difference between one kind of incompatibility and another.
I am not sure what is meant by the "nature" of the case before the court. Does that refer to distinctions between civil and criminal cases, between cases involving juveniles and cases involving adults, between long and short cases, or between cases with a jury and cases without a jury? Not one Opposition Member has troubled to try to explain that aspect.
Even if we accepted such wording, why is the nature of the case relevant to whether legislation can or cannot be interpreted compatibly with the convention? The implication is that legislation could mean one thing in one case and another in another case. That hardly strikes me as a sound basis for judicial interpretation. Having thought more carefully about the amendment, I hope that Opposition Members will accept that they are not arguing for anything terribly sensible.
That applies equally to amendment No. 103. The purpose of a declaration is to draw attention to a legislative incompatibility with the convention and to act as a trigger for a remedial order under clauses 10 to 12. A declaration of incompatibility has no effect on the case before the court. Clause 4(6) expressly provides that a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the relevant legislative provision. This is because we think that any decision to change primary legislation should be reserved for the consideration of Parliament. Again, the Government are upholding the sovereignty of Parliament and are not in any way breaching that principle.
Amendment No. 103 would prevent a declaration from being made unless that were specifically necessary to determine the case in question, yet the kinds of cases where the issues are likely to arise will almost inevitably be complex and involve different issues, each of which will have to be resolved by the court. Under this amendment, it is highly unlikely that a declaration of incompatibility would ever be made. That may be the real intention of the Opposition. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There are so many conversations going on that I cannot hear the Minister.

Mr. Hoon: Opposition Members have been anxiously awaiting these observations. I am sorry that they appear to find them less than exciting.
It is important that we deal properly with incompatibility and the declaration that might follow. Amendment No. 103 simply does not deal with it, and has no place in the scheme that we have established in clause 4.
The Government believe that this group of amendments is fundamentally misconceived. I do not believe that the amendments have been read carefully by Opposition Members. I therefore invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 15.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for this brief opportunity to respond to some of the points made in this debate, particularly those made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In a considered and cogent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) produced four reasons why this group of amendments should be supported: in defence of the people; in defence of the Government; in defence of the House; and in defence of the courts. Nothing that has fallen from the Minister's lips has done anything to persuade either me or my right hon. and hon. Friends that the arguments in favour of the amendments have been in any way defeated.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) hides within his gentle exterior a waspish tongue. I am not in the least bit surprised that his nickname across the county that he represents is "Tiger". Despite his waspish tongue, he did not say anything to knock our arguments on the head one jot. The substance of his complaint was that the language of amendment No. 15 was confusing. That is a matter for him, but it seems pretty clear to us.
My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke with experience of membership of the House and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, as a Member of the European Parliament and Scottish law graduate, and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, as a recorder and stipendiary magistrate, with practical experience of the judicial function. Both realise the dangers of breaking down the barriers separating two of the three limbs of our constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking also very carefully suggested that the incompatibility which is to be declared under clause 4 must be properly particularised. Nothing has been said by the Minister to dissuade me from the rightness of that argument.
I am happy to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave a characteristically robust performance. He was certainly not put off his stride by some of the interventions with which he dealt so expertly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has become a noted star of our debates on both the Human Rights Bill and the other constitutional issues with which he has had to deal. He supported amendment No. 15 from the interesting position of someone who supports incorporation. He deserves to be listened to with particular attention. It is perhaps worth reminding the Minister of a point that he mentioned—the European Court of Human Rights does not distinguish between obiter dicta and the ratio of a judgment.
The Minister promised much, but delivered nothing. He is complacent. He is always complacent—on this subject and on others—about the prospect of a constitutional collision about which we have warned. He displayed a touching faith in his own rhetoric, without understanding what has been going on in this debate. Not a single argument that he advanced has persuaded me or my hon. Friends that the matter should be left to lie. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in supporting the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 320.

Division No. 292]
[10.8 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Amess, D avid
Cran, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan, Alan


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brady, Graham
Flight, Howard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam


Butterfill, John
Fraser, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gale, Roger



Garnier, Edward


Chope, Christopher
Gibb, Nick


Clappison, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gray, James


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, John





Grieve, Dominic
Prior, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Randall, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robathan, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hammond, Philip
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Ruffley, David


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Swayne, Desmond


Lansley, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Major, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willetts, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


May, Mrs Theresa
Woodward, Shaun


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paterson, Owen
Sir David Madel and Mr. Tim Collins.


Pickles, Eric



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brand, Dr Peter


Ainger, Nick
Breed, Colin


Allan, Richard
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin, John
Burgon, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Burnett, John


Barnes, Harry
Burstow, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Casale, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Best, Harold
Chisholm, Malcolm


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clelland, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coaker, Vernon


Brake, Tom
Coffey, Ms Ann






Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cooper, Yvette
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobbin, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keetch, Paul


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fatchett, Derek
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Fisher, Mark
Levitt, Tom


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Flynn, Paul
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Galbraith, Sam
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gorrie, Donald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWilliam, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hancock, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Alun


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura





Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moore, Michael



Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Oaten, Mark
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham


Pearson, Ian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pickthall, Colin
Stunell, Andrew


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen




Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Touhig, Don


Primarolo, Dawn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Truswell, Paul


Quin, Ms Joyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rammell, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


Rapson, Syd
Ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Willis, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wills, Michael


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Salter, Martin
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—

'(f) in Jersey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;
(g) in Guernsey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;
(h) in the Isle of Man, the High Court'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 108, in clause 5, page 3, line 40, after 'Scotland', insert
`, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man'.


No. 109, in clause 21, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
`() law passed by the legislature of any of the Channel Islands or of the Isle of Man'.
No. 110, in clause 22, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
'(6A) This Act extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and shall have effect as if each of them were part of the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments would extend incorporation of the European convention to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I suppose that the only phrase to describe them is "semi-independent statelets", but they have a unique status as dependencies of the Crown, too. They are Britain's offshore anomalies, because, although they are responsible for their own domestic law, financial affairs and tax regimes, the United Kingdom has the overall responsibility for good government in the islands.
The United Kingdom can legislate for the islands; it has the paramount power to do so. However, in practice, it does not do so except on matters involving international treaties and international agreements—such as the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, which we signed on their behalf at the outset.
Paragraph 1472 of the Kilbrandon commission's report on the constitution, dated 1973, said
Parliament does have power to legislate for the Islands without their consent on any matter in order to give effect to an international agreement"—
such as the European convention on human rights. The power was used in relation to the Extradition Act 1989, which was extended to the Channel Islands as if they were part of the United Kingdom, and also in connection with the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967, which was effectively imposed on the Isle of Man.
The British Government's power to legislate is appropriate, as they have the responsibility to ensure that rights are maintained in the islands. Moreover, the British Government have to answer cases brought to Strasbourg about infringements of rights on the islands—we signed the convention on the islands' behalf. Indeed, in the birching case, the European Court ruled that convention rights applied to the Isle of Man.
My argument is that the convention should be incorporated not only into British law but into the law of the islands. Rights should be protected in these small democracies and dependencies, which are intimate and closed—they are, in many respects, living loopholes from the 20th century. There is no real party democracy that could make the legislature accountable, no open government and no base for dissent. The islands have their own tax regimes, which must cost our Exchequer billions of pounds in lost revenues. They do not have clear, powerful, effective financial regulations—they have become little offshore entrepots for the manipulation of money.
Powers are not separated: in Jersey, for example, the Bailiff—the Lord Chancellor—is also the Speaker of the States, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General sit in the States and there is no independent Director of Public Prosecutions. Women have no employment or benefits rights.
The islands have all the intimacies and pressures of any small community—they are like Salem without the witches. In Jersey, which is the richest of them, power is, in effect, controlled by the wealthy island elite—the island

establishment—which has a vested interest in providing services to finance. Many members of the elite are business men or maintainers of name plates for incoming companies; many are involved with Jersey banks and the offshoots of other banks in Jersey that manipulate money. The elite controls power through the parliamentary institutions. It also controls the media—Senator Walker owns the Jersey Evening Post, which is, therefore, hardly likely to be a vibrant source of dissent.
The islands have been humorously described—by me—as one-party states run by the freemasons. There are no parties and no opposition, so the regimes are cloying and potentially corrupt, because, in Jersey in particular, the governing elite does so well out of the provision of facilities for financial services, which give such a rich living—£200 billion is handled in the Jersey banks and financial institutions, and financial services provide more than 50 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Jersey.
If the people who control political power are also involved in the financial system, that system will be run for their interests and for those of the offshore capitalism that washes through, but leaves little residue for the people of the islands—there is no great trickle-down effect for the mass of the people. It is also possible that they will use their power to control legislation to further their own interests. In other words, legislation could be effectively up for sale. They resent any interference by the British Government or any attempt to control what is going on or to demand stricter regulation or a more effective tax regime.
Two years ago, however, they were perfectly prepared to intervene in the financial affairs of the United Kingdom in respect of limited liability partnerships. Big accountancy firms, terrified of lawsuits resulting from bad audits, were lobbying the British Government, who were then of another party, to give them limited liability status. Rather than becoming joint stock companies as they were given the power to do under the Companies Act 1989—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but it does not fall within the scope of the amendments. He is talking about the status of the islands rather than the courts. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do how to handle the amendments.

Mr. Mitchell: Amendment No. 107 would extend the incorporation of the convention into the islands' legislation. Rights are threatened by the dominance of the financial interests. Those rights can best be protected by the incorporation of the convention.
A row that resulted in a real threat to rights in Jersey was caused by the attempt two years ago to interfere in the United Kingdom financial system in respect of limited liability partnerships in Jersey. Effectively, two accountancy houses bought legislation in Jersey to limit liability. The legislation was drawn up by a London barrister at a cost of £1 million, and was promised a fast-track passage into law by the Jersey States. They sought to interfere here, as the idea was that they would force the British Government to follow suit. The protest against the rapid passage of that legislation resulted in a threat to the rights of Senator Syvaret, whose case is an illustration of the need to incorporate the convention into the legislation of the islands.
Any threat to intervene there is bitterly resented. The establishment in Jersey tries to maintain good relations with the Minister—usually a peer at the Home Office—who is richly and lavishly entertained. One establishment talks rhubarb to another establishment. Not satisfied with that, it employs extensive public relations advice, which is appropriate to the modern world of spin doctors and public relations.
The Max Clifford of Jersey is the Shandwick public affairs consultancy, which was paid £225,000 until the row over limited liability partnerships, when its fee was upped by another £200,000, so nearly £500,000 was paid out of the taxes of the people of Jersey to defend the interests of the elite. That involved all sorts of activities, which I shall not go into as they would divert me from the incorporation of the convention on human rights into the laws of Jersey.
However, I should mention in passing that part of the £500,000 that was spent on public relations as a result of the row over limited liability partnerships was paid in writing letters to me. Shandwick reported to the Jersey States about my article, saying:
I have ensured that Labour party key people have been briefed on the Jersey line
which was against me. It continued:
Mr. Mitchell is regarded as being a liability by the Labour party".
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to assure the people of Jersey that that is not the case, and that I am indeed regarded as an asset by the Labour party.

Mr. Straw: I give my very old and honourable Friend that categorical assurance.

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. That stage-managed intervention gives me a great deal of pleasure.
In contrast to what was said about me, it was said about my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice):
He is not likely to be made a member of the Government but I think he is worth targeting because of his level of knowledge and because he is still listened to by those in senior positions.
That is picking and choosing in the Labour party, but it is part of public relations—[Interruption.] I am leaving the topic.
I want to deal with the abridgement of rights that resulted from the attempt to limit liability for partnerships of accountancy houses, which was passed, under the fast-track procedure, by the Jersey States. The problem is that, when the elite feels threatened—when there is a threat to its vested financial interests and the provision of services—whether it be by the British Government or by critics in this country, it is prepared to use all the power and resources at its disposal to beat off that threat, whether it is internal or external. That often produces abridgements of rights, which are endemic in a system where there is no separation of powers; where the Executive is also the legislature; where there is no meaningful opposition; and where there is no protection of rights.
I have already referred to the lack of protection of the rights of women. I was told in a telephone conversation today that a man in Sark still has the right to beat his

wife, provided that the stick is thinner than his thumb and he does not draw blood. I do not want to provoke a rush of public school Conservatives wanting to settle in the island as a result of that revelation, but it is a sign of the feudal nature of the regime in Sark and the abuses of rights that it produces. The newspapers cite numerous instances of that.
In Guernsey, not long ago, there was the case of three men being locked up over a bank holiday without trial. The case did not come to court until five months later, and they were acquitted. A construction worker on the island of Brecqhou who was arrested in a drugs case was taken from Guernsey to Sark and charged, probably in the wrong jurisdiction, subjected to a trial in French—a language that he did not speak—and then told by a lawyer on the telephone, "You might as well plead guilty and get it over with." His rights were abridged.
There is the case of the Barclay brothers, the owners of The Scotsman. It involved an abridgement of rights. David Barclay wrote to me saying:
I have discovered by bitter experience over the past three or four years, and to my immense cost, the lack of natural justice and democratic rights in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the island of Sark".
He said that, on Sark:
The Seigneur is the head of the Chief Pleas, Sark's Parliament, which is made up of 40 unelected members and he collects a thirteenth of the price of every property purchased on the island. This money is for his own personal benefit"—
it is a marvellous racket—
and serves no economic benefit whatsoever to the community. He appoints the Seneschal; he appoints the Prevot (Sheriff); he appoints the Greffier; he appoints the Treasurer and he approves the Constable.
What defence of rights is there in such a situation?
David Barclay continued:
The previous owner of Brecqhou"—
which the Barclay brothers now own—
was forced into a legal dispute to establish rightful ownership of the island under the feudal laws of primogeniture.
There was a long dispute over which court applied—Sark or Guernsey. The case was referred to Guernsey, but after six years it remained unresolved. The owner was told that the court case could go on for another six years. Justice denied is a loss of rights. There is no appeal; there is no check on that sort of excess, which is now affecting the Barclay brothers. That is an appalling situation. The Barclay brothers are wealthy enough to take care of themselves, but it is difficult to do so when there is no protection for rights.
The case of Senator Syvaret arose from limited liability partnerships. When a Bill was rushed through the Jersey States, he drew attention to a conflict of interest by pointing out that Senator Reg Jeune was part of Mourant, du Feu and Jeune, which was acting for Price Waterhouse and Ernst and Young in trying to pass the Bill. There is a fascinating precedent in that Bill, which we could observe. The introduction expresses Jersey's indebtedness to Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse for writing the Bill. Perhaps we could have sponsored legislation, too. It is a marvellous system.
Thus the Bill was being handled by Mourant, du Feu and Jeune, while Senator Jeune was urging its speedy passage. When Senator Syvaret drew attention to that


conflict of interest, he was suspended indefinitely, unless he withdrew his remarks and apologised. He was deprived of his rights as a legislator, and his constituents were deprived of representation. Basic rights were denied, and there was no appeal.
Appeals to the Home Office Minister then responsible produced no result. I tabled an early-day motion that was well supported, and which produced a change of heart in Jersey. Senator Syvaret was allowed back without making an apology. They huddled him in by the back door. He is involved in a legal action over the deprivation of his rights, so that the case can go to Strasbourg, but that will remain a long, difficult road unless we incorporate the convention into the laws of all the islands, as my amendments would do.
We have the power to do that, and we have a moral obligation to do it. If we do not, in my view, and in the view of lawyers whom I have read, we shall be in breach of article 14 of the convention, if it is read alongside article 6. We are responsible for the islands, and when Senator Syvaret's case reaches Strasbourg, it will be titled Syvaret v. the United Kingdom. What formidable odds the senator from little Jersey faces as he takes on the entire United Kingdom. We are responsible for derelictions of rights in the islands, and we have a right to act under the external agreement. The royal commission on the constitution of 1973 made that explicit.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a canny man. Perhaps he is doing a nice guy, nasty guy routine, and he might portray me as a mean, moody monster who threatens the independence and integrity of the islands. My right hon. Friend knows that that is not my nature; I am warm and cuddly, and I have a vacuous smile for all, as any new Labour politician must. To portray me as some kind of brute or monster, trampling on the freedom of the islands, would be wrong.
I know—I have read it in the papers, and I have been handed letters that confirm it—that the fact that the amendments were tabled encouraged the Under-Secretary, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to go to Guernsey. He did not get to Jersey, because there was a strike, so the Jersey elite paddled over in rowing boats to consult him. They agreed to pass the legislation, but I want to know why it should be done that way. Would it not be better to do it for ourselves? Then there would be no backsliding, and it would be done without delay. The legislative processes in the islands are very slow—unless they are financed by Price Waterhouse or Ernst and Young. It can take three years, and rights would still be abused in that period.
I notice from the newspapers that Senator Pierre Horsfall of Jersey said that the Bailiff told Lord Williams that, when Sir Philip Bailhache was previously Attorney-General—he is now the Bailiff—
Jersey was on the verge of adopting the convention but was asked not to do so by the Home Office as the UK Government did not want to be seen to be following a dependency in adopting the provisions of the Human Rights Convention.
That cannot possibly be true. I should like my right hon. Friend to comment on it.
10.45 pm
An editorial in the Guernsey Evening Press says, more or less, that I should mind my own business. It states:

We would rather see the Labour MP turn his attention to real problems in the UK, such as the growing hospital waiting lists, prison overcrowding and drugs".

That comes from an island where there is a shortage of nurses and prison staff because they are not paid enough and there is a growing drugs problem. The island cannot afford the latest medical technology, and urgent and serious cases are sent to Southampton for treatment. The British health service and all British social services are being drained of billions of pounds through the taxes and fiddles that are going on in the independent financial regime there.
We shall not ratify the fourth protocol at present, for reasons that were explained to me by the Home Office Minister. I wish to put a further question to my right hon. Friend about the fourth protocol, which has been put to me from Jersey. Is it possible to include the fourth protocol in any Jersey Bill if it is not included in the British Bill—and if not, why not? Is there any reason why Jersey or Guernsey could not introduce the fourth protocol in local Bills, even if the UK does not?
I am afraid that I have spoken for too long, so I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. Many other hon. Members want to participate in the debate and give their views on offshore havens—those curious offshore anomalies. I know that my right hon. Friend is interested in and concerned about the issue. He has demonstrated his concern by initiating an inquiry into the regulatory regime. I hope that he will rush to accept my amendment, so that we can get the matter over with without delay or backsliding from the islands. If not, I hope that he has bankable assurances from the islands that they will legislate for themselves if he is anxious to maintain the convention. In my view, it is not necessary to do so because I want the rights of the masses of ordinary people in the islands—not those of the elite, who can take care of themselves—to be protected, so that we can make the islands fit for people, not just for money.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has raised a valuable issue. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill gave my party's view, which is broadly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and we support the principle of incorporation for the offshore dependencies. It is not necessary to go into all the circumstances that he has adduced in support of his argument, or even to adopt his reasoning. However, there is no doubt about our ability to do what he suggests.

Mr. Mitchell: I omitted to express my indebtedness to Lord Lester, who wrote the amendments and provided me with helpful support and advice. I am grateful to him. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that.

Mr. Maclennan: In turn, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, as my noble Friend will be.
This country's obligation to take the rights of those living in those dependencies seriously is undoubted. How that is done—whether in the Bill or by the legislatures of the islands themselves—is of secondary importance. What is crucial is that it be done. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has said that it is likely that it will be done within the islands, or at least that such an intention has been expressed, and I am advised that it is at least probable. That would not necessarily have happened if the issue had not been pressed, as it has been by the hon. Gentleman, and if the House had not expressed strong concern about regularising the position.
I do not doubt that one point that surprises many other countries about our adherence to the convention is that we did not long ago provide domestic remedies designed to give effect to the convention rights. Equivalent legislation was certainly passed in all the other signatory countries. It would be highly anomalous if the islands were to remain outwith the convention scheme under which domestic remedies are made available to give effect to the rights. I hope that that view will have been heard in all the islands and that we shall have no more Manx birching cases being contested in Strasbourg, because they can be handled in Douglas.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for tabling the amendments and raising this important issue, just as the Government were grateful in the other place for the way in which Lord Lester raised the matter there.
As we have heard, the amendments would apply the Bill's provisions in various ways to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the United Kingdom is obliged to ensure that the islands comply with the convention and that there is a right of individual petition to the convention institutions in Strasbourg in respect of the islands, but that the convention does not at present have effect in their domestic law. I am happy to tell the Committee that the island authorities have made it clear that they want to bring rights home to the islands, just as we are doing in the United Kingdom.
Before I move on to the detail of that, it may assist the Committee if I say something about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the islands. That was set out in detail in the report of the royal commission on the constitution in 1973—the Kilbrandon report. My hon. Friend referred in particular to paragraph 1494 and the conclusions in paragraph 1513.
Briefly, the conclusion of the Kilbrandon report is that the United Kingdom Government are responsible for the defence and international relations of the islands, and the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government. It falls to the Home Secretary to advise the Crown on the exercise of those duties and responsibilities. The United Kingdom Parliament has the power to legislate for the islands, but it would exercise that power without their agreement in relation to domestic matters only in the most exceptional circumstances.
A domestic circumstance that also affected all the countries that make up the United Kingdom—and, to some extent, had international effects—which was cited at length in the Kilbrandon report, was the issue, which those of us of a certain age remember only too well, of the so-called pirate radio stations that were set up off the shore of the Isle of Man in the early 1960s. Some of us still remember the catch tune of Radio Caroline. Much of the noise harassment that some of us now suffer could be said to have flowed from that experiment. Those were exceptional circumstances: legislation on domestic matters usually takes the form of laws enacted by the island legislatures, although they are subject to endorsement by me as Secretary of State for the Home Department and by the Privy Council.
United Kingdom laws are sometimes extended to the islands with their agreement. We consulted the island authorities about the extension of the Bill to them. All

three said that they did not wish it to be so extended, and, as we want to maintain satisfactory relations with the islands, we paid careful attention to their views, as always.
The Committee will be glad to know that my noble Friend Lord Williams, the Minister with responsibility for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, has undertaken a series of visits to find out from the island authorities what plans they have in the human rights field. I am pleased to say that their responses have all been positive. Each of the island authorities has made clear its intentions with respect to the Bill and the incorporation in its domestic law of the European convention. I have placed copies of their public statements and letters in the Library and have made them available to the official Opposition, to the Liberal Democrats and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
It is worth pointing out that Jersey has fairly said that, six years ago, under the previous Administration, a proposal that the island should enact legislation to incorporate the European convention was raised with Home Office officials and was discussed informally with the Secretary-General of the Commission in Strasbourg. The island's Attorney-General was informed at that time by officials that the Home Office did not favour the island acting in advance of the United Kingdom, so the matter was shelved. Consultation goes both ways, and the previous Government, for reasons that I understand, but do not agree with, decided that they did not want incorporation of the convention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and asked the island authorities to follow suit.
The Bailiff of Jersey has now made it clear that the insular authorities
wish to confirm their previously declared intention to progress the matter of legislation to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into Jersey law, having regard to the particular circumstances of the Island, once the United Kingdom Bill has completed its progress through Parliament in Westminster.
The Bailiffs letter goes on:
The Insular Authorities confidently expect to have a draft law with the Home Office for pre audit in the normal way by the end of this year.
The States of Guernsey issued a public statement on 22 May. The President of the Advisory and Finance Committee said:
The States Advisory and Finance Committee intends to recommend to the States of Guernsey that legislation be enacted
to incorporate the convention—
having regard to the particular circumstances of the Island".
He said that, once the Bill has become law, recommendations will be laid before the States of Guernsey. He added:
The Committee is confident that it will be possible to submit a draft law to the Home Office for pre-audit before the end of this year.
In December 1997, the Isle of Man made it clear that it intended to introduce legislation to give effect in Manx law to the convention on human rights. It says:
Before any Government Bill is introduced in the House of Keys, a draft is always sent to the Home Office for their comments, if necessary after consultation with other United Kingdom Departments, and appropriate measures are taken to consult local interests.
In the light of those statements, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the Governments of each of the three islands are committed to introducing


legislation fully to incorporate the European convention into their own law and to consult me, my officials and the Government more widely on the precise terms of that incorporation.
I believe that that is a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

11 pm

Mr. Straw: Of course, in a moment.
I hope that, in the light of those clear undertakings, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
My hon. Friend asked whether any of the island authorities could incorporate into their domestic law the fourth protocol of the convention, even though it is not being incorporated into the Bill. The answer is that they cannot incorporate any part of the convention that the United Kingdom and the Crown, as high contracting party to the convention, have not accepted. That important part of our relationship with the islands gives the Crown and the United Kingdom Parliament ultimate authority over them we, and not they, enter into all international obligations, which are then binding on the islands.
That said, it would none the less be open to each of the island authorities and Parliaments, should they want to, to write the terms of the fourth protocol, or of any other protocol not incorporated into the Bill, into their domestic law.

Mr. Cousins: My right hon. Friend's remarks have been extremely helpful—indeed, fascinating—but may I draw his attention to the fact that the third protocol of the treaty of accession to the treaty of Rome, which was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, specifically exempts the Crown dependencies from participating in the European Union for the purposes of people, finance and capital? They participate in the EU solely for the purpose of movement of goods for trading. Is he satisfied that the rather anomalous position of the Crown dependencies within the EU provides the right constitutional foundation for fully satisfying the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I shall not detain the Committee, because we are due to finish this business in 10 minutes, except to say that, as part of the somewhat onerous duties of the presidency of the European Union, I spent two and a half days in Brussels last week as President of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. A lot of time was devoted to the extent to which the islands were subject to various treaties under the treaty of Rome. We are dealing with a convention arising not under the treaty of Rome and the European Communities treaties, but under the Council of Europe, of which we have been a member for many more years than we have been a member of the European Communities.
The position in respect of the European Union and the islands is complicated, not only because of what the islands desire, but because of difficulties for Gibraltar and other places—not dependencies of the United Kingdom—over how such territories should be dealt with in those treaties. Similar problems arise in respect of Spanish dependencies, for example, but in the Justice and Home

Affairs Council last week, we agreed that a convention on a European judicial network should apply to the islands. That will not directly impose obligations on them, but will give them some discretion.
As we had been unable to consult, I did not accept a proposal from other member states that the islands should, without consultation, be made subject to the Eurodac convention on the fingerprinting of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, and to the convention on driving disqualifications.
Sark has been referred to. I had to point out to some colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council that, whatever else one may worry about on Sark, driving disqualifications should not keep us up all night. As I think the Committee famously knows, there is only one vehicle on Sark, which I understand is a Daimler.
In the light of what I have said, and the clear undertakings given by the island authorities, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I speak, as a good Tory grammar school boy—not, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) suggested, a Tory public school boy—to support the Home Secretary in his opposition to the amendments. I thought it particularly sad that the hon. Member cited the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 as a reason why Parliament should impose legislation on the states of Jersey and Guernsey and the House of Keys. The 1967 Act had a direct impact on me, although I was very young at the time. I remember who introduced the legislation: the notorious John Stonehouse, the then Postmaster General.
One of the reasons for my opposition to the implementation of the legislation on the islands is the fact of their independence. I felt that, in some ways, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was rather xenophobic in his remarks about Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—although, of course, xenophobia is not the right word in this context, because it means a fear of foreigners. Those islanders are not foreigners at all; they regard themselves very much as part of the British isles, although not of the British isles.
I am not even convinced that whether those islanders choose to adopt the convention will make much difference. Two years ago, a constituent of mine, Stan Allsop, a truck driver, was arrested and held in France, which is a signatory to the convention. He was held in solitary confinement for 11 weeks. For five weeks, his wife, children and grandchildren were not even informed of his whereabouts. As my former right hon. Friend Malcolm Rifkind said to me at the time, France provided a marvellous example of habeas without the corpus. The convention clearly gave Mr. Allsop no protection.
I do not believe that the Bill will have any impact on the United Kingdom, which will accept it; nor do I believe that we should impose it on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man. To do so would not set a precedent, because such legislation was imposed on those islands when the 1967 Act was implemented, but I think that, in the new generation that has grown up over the past 10 years, the Bill creates a dangerous precedent. The islands have secured independence; we have chosen not to involve them in our law, and I think that to do so now would be wrong.
We should also remember the islands' special place in the European Union. They are not part of the EU as such; they have independence in the sense that they are not part of the customs union, and we respect that. I think we should say that they should either be incorporated totally in the EU, or not at all. To do it piecemeal would be completely wrong. Whether the Home Secretary is right to induce them to absorb the convention is for the House of Keys and the Jersey and Guernsey Parliaments to decide, but I feel that it should be their decision and not that of the Committee. For that reason, I oppose the amendments.
The long catalogue of personal objections raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about why Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man should have the legislation imposed on them seemed to be more related to personal slight by agencies or spin doctors than to any legal reasons. I therefore oppose the amendments.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for sharply stating his objections. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his good reply, and I commend him for the efforts that have been put into persuading the islands to pass the legislation in their own way. I would prefer it to be done our way because that avoids delays, which will occur, and any backsliding, which might occur. I trust the Home Secretary more than I trust some legislators. Guernsey had to be pushed into this fairly rapidly.
The image of the islands might be "Bergerac", but the reality is lax financial and tax regulation which gives rise to scandals such as money laundering and BCCI. Some day, we shall have to grasp the nettle of this so-called independence. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Local Agenda 21

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to be able to debate the topic of Local Agenda 21. It is ironic but pleasing that it is sandwiched between yesterday's debate on electoral reform and tomorrow's debate on the modernisation of the House. Local Agenda 21 and its constituent parts shows what is happening in the wider political field. It shows that there is much democratic engagement outside this place, and we must recognise that and view it as an opportunity and not as a threat.
Many hon. Members will know about Local Agenda 21, but it is important to discuss it and to speak about my experiences in my constituency and in Gloucestershire. The Government have already picked up the ball on the agenda and if in some small way I can help the process along, I am willing to do so. It is not for me to pre-empt what the Minister will say, but "Opportunities for Change", the Government's consultation document on sustainable development and sustainable local communities for the 21st century on why and how to prepare an effective Local Agenda 21 strategy, is an important statement. The Government have shown how the debate can be advanced.
What is Local Agenda 21 and its true meaning? It derives from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the so-called Earth summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At the conference, 179 countries, including, of course, the United Kingdom, signed up to an agenda for change in the 21st century, known as Agenda 21. Local Agenda 21 reflects the important part that was played by local government and local democracy at that conference, and important requirements were placed upon them to produce the necessary local change. That was not an imposition, but rather an evolution of what was happening and what could be achieved. The key element is the drive towards sustainable development that is most attainable locally.
As has been said:
Many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities … By 1996, most Local Authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on 'a Local Agenda 21 for the community'.
Through consultation and consensus-building, Local Authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organisations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local Authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted.
My experience relates to Vision 21 in Gloucestershire, which is how we refer to Local Agenda 21 there. Local Agenda 21 was welcomed in my county. Since 1993, an enthusiastic group of individuals have gradually moulded into a successful team, and have steered the local agenda process with a remarkable amount of achievement. It was originally parented by the Rendezvous Society, and, for that, all of us who have been involved in the process owe it an enormous debt of gratitude.
Vision 21 is now held up as a model of what is possible, and I know that other local agenda teams have drawn heavily on its experiences. If, as the Government suggest, there is much to be learned by the spread of good practice, there appears to be no better place to use as an exemplar.
As part of Vision 21, many thousands of different individuals have come together to engage in this most worthwhile of pursuits—to plan our future society on the basis of a sustainable development approach. Many of those individuals may have attended only one event, such as a conference or campaign activity. However, their contribution has always been welcomed and valued.
As always, while some of our involvement has been minimal, others have worked relentlessly to make Vision 21 the success that it has become. It is never possible to mention many by name, but I should like to make special mention of Lindsay Colbourne, Julia Bennett, Alison Parfitt, Conrad Young, David Christmas, Sue Porter, Diana Ray and Richard Keating, who have done so much to drive Vision 21 along. If I have left out others who should be mentioned, I apologise, but I feel that at least some should be recalled by name, such has been their contribution to democracy in all its form, particularly from Gloucestershire's perspective.
One of the most pleasing aspects of the whole exercise has been the way in which people from across the political divide have combined for the benefit of their constituents—likewise, the manner in which professionals have worked with amateurs, activists from particular pressure groups have combined with generalists from the political class, and the fact that age, class, gender, physical or mental capacity or ethnic origin has been no barrier to participation.
Much has depended on the willing involvement of local government officers, who have given so generously of their time, much of it voluntarily. I pay my respects to my local authority, Stroud district council, and to Gloucestershire county council, which have had a lot to do with the success of Vision 21. All in all, that has shown how it is possible to build consensual relationships, and, if managed properly, how powerful they can become.
Enough of the plaudits. What did Vision 21 set out to achieve, and how can its outcomes be measured? To start with, six big issues were identified as the key challenges facing the county: first, to enhance the physical environment, biodiversity and natural resources; secondly, to introduce new value systems that reflect the importance of the quality of life and environment, rather than simply monetary considerations; thirdly, to embrace the new economy and new ways of working that value the formal and informal sectors; fourthly, to adopt new decision-making processes and structures that promote power sharing, co-operation, local participation, empowerment, democracy and an holistic long-term approach; fifthly, to increase awareness of sustainability and improve access to the quality, scope and aims of education, information, communication and monitoring; lastly, to bring about widespread behavioural and attitudinal change.
The means of meeting those challenges were set out via a series of major conferences, campaigns, local consultations and events. The on-going work was carried out through eight working groups, which covered the following sectors: natural resources and countryside;

the built environment; energy, transport, waste and pollution; health and social issues; the economy and education; community and involvement.
The working group agenda followed three different stages. First, where are we now? Secondly, where do we want to be? Thirdly, how do we get there? While the context was essentially local and regional, national and global contexts were always referred to where appropriate.
Several underlying themes arose through the work of each group: the importance of rural dimensions; the need for vision; changes in employment and livelihood; critical environmental balance; the dislocation of supply and demand for natural supplies and the increasing role that conservation would play; and how important community values would be for solving problems.
What has been accomplished? In terms of measurable outcomes, the very fact that Vision 21 has continued to grow and evolve five years on speaks volumes. The true value will be seen with regard to how it is assimilated into structure and local plans, new modes of activity affecting the arts, recreation and people's quality of life, ensuring that future generations are active citizens, and raising the general level of awareness through communication of ideas and educational advancement. Most of these will take many years to come to fruition, but many of us in Gloucestershire feel that a valuable new beginning has been made.
Major stepping stones were laid, which could be seen from a series of publications. "Sustainable Gloucestershire—a general handbook"—which gives an overview of what has happened—and "Sustainable Gloucestershire—an agenda for urgent action for local government" are two worthy of mention, but there are others. The regular editions of "21 Today" newsletters are worth emphasising. Wider communication with both the general public and specialist constituencies has been a crucial element and aim throughout Vision 21's deliberations.
Additionally, a major conference was held on "Accommodating Gloucestershire" which took the housing debate forward and allowed for a perceptive discussion on how much, where and what type of housing should be provided for the county. I have had recourse to this in am earlier Adjournment debate. Other conferences are planned for transport and the local economy. Vision 21 has also launched many practical projects. Three taken at random are a sustainable parish regeneration project, a sustainable energy centre and a rickshaw taxi service—we have everything in Gloucestershire.
Finally, the programme has spawned some community initiatives, including the community planning conference in my town of Stroud. This involved a massive investment of people's time and effort, spread over both weekday evenings and weekends. Its remit was to look to replan the town of Stroud and its immediate environs with practical ideas such as providing a new cinema, regenerating the town centre, setting up the community health forum and greening up the urban area.
As someone who witnessed this at first hand, I can say that the quality and input given on a voluntary basis by many hundreds of individuals gave me hope for what could be accomplished by such an exercise. It is linked, where appropriate, with other community initiatives, especially a credit union, a local exchange trading scheme


and incipient co-operatives. This groundwork provided the basis for part of a succesful bid for single regeneration budget funds, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was able to announce on her recent visit to Stroud.
By looking elsewhere, we can put all this into context. I was pleased to receive a letter today from the corporation of London, which asked me to mention some of the excellent things that it has been involved with. I know that it is one of many authorities which have taken this on board seriously.
I am indebted to the Local Government Management Board—which regularly investigates and evaluates the progress of Local Agenda 21—for the information it has sent. The LGMB has shown that, despite the difficulty in collating the information, there is a great deal going on across the country—much of which we can be inspired by. As it said in its executive summary:
Significantly, there is evidence that Local Agenda 21 is staring to play a role in enhancing local democracy and ensuring community involvement in local decision-making processes.
It goes on to talk about local government using Local Agenda 21 as a vehicle for change in community participation, and new democratic structures arising accordingly. The LGMB shows how far local government has gone in terms of eco-management and audit schemes, and how much environmental awareness has been assimilated into this activity.
The LGMB is very explicit in identifying the many pluses—with some minuses—in terms of how it sees Local Agenda 21 performing so far. It also points out many lessons that can be learned and measures that can be introduced to help the process on its way. I am sure that the Government will take close notice of this, and act accordingly.
From my perspective, what has been the Government's response to the process? As I said, they have produced a number of important documents that are well worth highlighting. Vital to the process is the fact that Labour is willing to place sustainable development at the centre of what it is trying to do—whether in production and consumption, in building communities or in managing the environment and resources—by adopting radical new means of engaging in democratic structures, and by working in partnership with a range of different stakeholders.
Pleasingly, the Government have set 2000 as the target date for all local authorities to sign up to Local Agenda 21. In itself, that is an important move. They have placed clear obligations on all local authorities, prescribing action checklists and providing help in evolving strategies that move from the theoretical to the very practical. They have also signalled their willingness not only to listen but to act, and to use a range of tools, such as introduction of best value, to effect necessary change. Similarly, they will provide the nexus of new policy initiatives in transport, housing and social policy.
There are some criticisms of Local Agenda 21 that the Government will have to take on board. Some of the process, for example, seems to be rather introverted, and can occasionally be described as a talking shop. Nevertheless, if the process is allowed to follow its proper

course, it will be very valuable in informing communities, and ensuring that people have a proper say in how they want their society to evolve.
What can the Government do to help? With so much already happening and appearing to go so well, it may seem churlish to ask them to do more. However, in seeking advice from those with whom I have worked in Vision 21, a number of points have been raised.
First, how can Local Agenda 21 enable active citizenship, without burying people in more bureaucracy? That is a real issue, and there is a need to fund research into and the dissemination of enabling structures, focusing especially on how local authorities can contribute to such structures. if that is to happen, the LGMB, the Government offices for the regions and the Local Government Association should be asked to work with grass-roots activists from Local Agenda 21—thereby helping to create a better understanding of the bidding process, which often militates against smaller organisations and local partnerships. Often, such bodies cannot get into the running, or waste enormous time resources on futile bids.
Secondly, how can local authorities' overload be reduced? The deluge of sustainability-related legislation and regulations—although valuable in its own right—is beginning to put local government under pressure, as each change demands an evaluation and response, and incorporation into existing policies. Authorities might be helped in adapting if there were a way of redefining the changes so that emphasis was placed on the process rather than on fixed outcomes.
Thirdly, how can help be given for community development and for capacity-building and parallel organisational development? There is a belief that insufficient effort is being placed on developing the whole organisation by meeting identified training needs, and on how such training could be used to encourage better collaborative working at lower skill levels and in higher-order skills, such as by developing new approaches to audit, evaluation and planning processes.
Finally, there seems to be some weakness in how Local Agenda 21 might be translated to the regional level—which, because of the Government's intention of devolving responsibility to the regions, could be so important.
I could make other points, but, as I know that the Minister would like to reply to the debate, I shall end there.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this debate. Sustainable development is central to the Government's policies. As this debate has shown, and as many hon. Members will know from their constituency work, sustainable development grass-roots expression—which is Local Agenda 21—is thriving across the country, not least in Gloucestershire.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Local Agenda 21 steering group, with its wide membership of nongovernmental organisations, of community, education and business


groups and of central and local government. I pay tribute also to the many local authorities, and their communities, which are contributing to the United Kingdom's growing reputation as a world leader in implementing at local level the commitments of the Rio Earth summit.
As we have heard tonight, Local Agenda 21 recognises no political divides among parties, tiers of government, NGOs, businesses, the rich, the poor, the young, the old, volunteers, employees or ethnic groups. It is a policy that links us all to a joint determination to improve the way in which we live; it is a way of translating concern about our environment into action; and it is a way to ensure that each and every individual can have an effect and can make a difference. I hope that we can use tonight's debate to encourage those communities which are not yet fully committed to the process to get stuck in.
The terms "sustainable development"—and, indeed, Local Agenda 21—are puzzling to many. People do not immediately understand what the concept means, or get excited by it; but the concept underlying the phrases—that of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come—is one that the public fully support and that can provide plentiful and enthusiastic resources into which local authorities can tap.
As a Government, we are committed to getting people involved in the national debate to determine our new sustainability strategy. Now that we have come to the end of the consultation period on the debate, which was launched in February in "Opportunities for Change", responses are flooding in: we have already received more than 4,000 responses, and 500 more detailed comments.
In that document, we proposed a new and integrated way of thinking about choices right across Government and throughout the country, so as to build, for the present and for the future, a modern and fair society that is founded on a strong economy and a healthy environment. We need to bring together the most important economic, environmental and social objectives, so that we can set in train social progress that recognises the needs of everybody, while at the same time effectively protecting the environment, using natural resources prudently and maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. We also need to monitor achievement, through target setting and devising meaningful indicators that keep track of progress; and to report that in a way that is clear, comprehensive and meaningful to a wider audience.
As part of our initiative to encourage people to understand what sustainable development means and to contribute to the national effort to achieve lasting improvements, we are keen to encourage people to play their part in creating a more sustainable world. Schemes such as "Doing your bit" and Eco Cal, the computer gadget with which Going for Green is involved and which measures the greenness of individual life styles, show all of us how we can help the environment by reducing pollution and saving energy.
We know that people are concerned about the environment and global warming, and that they want to do something about it, yet many do not appreciate how much their personal use of energy causes global warming. Many are also sceptical that their individual action is important, but it is. The schemes aim to bring home the message that individual actions do count and that the public can make a big contribution to protecting both their

local and their global environment. Simple things, like sometimes walking or cycling rather than always using the car, cleaning the car with a bucket and not a hose, or heating only enough water in the kettle for a cup of coffee, all help.
Our research shows that, after seeing "Doing your bit", people were more likely to mention as environmentally friendly turning the television off instead of leaving it on standby, switching off unnecessary lights, and keeping the car tuned. The main messages they picked up were to reduce car use, use less energy and resources and stop pollution. They also picked up on the need to save the environment, fight global warming and do something positive; and the fact that environmental pollution can aggravate asthma.
I am delighted that so many local authorities are taking up the challenge set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly special session in New York last June, when he called on all local authorities to have a Local Agenda 21 strategy in place by the end of the year 2000.
In January, at a Local Government Association conference in London, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment launched a guidance document, which we had jointly produced with the LGA and the local government management board, to show why and how to produce a local strategy. I am glad to say that it is proving very popular: we have already issued 10,000 copies of "Sustainable local communities for the 21st century" and are having to print more.
Over the next few weeks, each of our Government offices in the regions will be holding a seminar to offer practical guidance on producing and implementing effective Local Agenda 21 strategies. They will be targeted in particular on those local authorities that have yet to develop such a strategy, but there will be workshop options for councils and authorities to work at more advanced stages. We believe that, if sustainable development is to become a reality, the concept must become part of the structural processes of planning within the organisation. That means creating commitment and understanding at all levels.
Actions of groups such as Gloucester Vision 21 take the sustainable development campaign right out to the local level. The dynamic Local Agenda 21 strategy is about creating a vision for a community's action plan to produce a lasting improvement in the quality of life for all, and then deciding how to implement it, review it and update it. It means identifying the major priorities for long-term action for that community, and then working with and through local groups by harnessing their resources and enthusiasm to deliver action to help meet those priorities.
It means measuring and reporting on progress, and being honest about areas where more needs to be done—perhaps where the community is not behaving sustainably. It is about raising awareness about what everyone can do: business, trade unions, voluntary bodies, central and local government, families and individuals.
My hon. Friend rightly praised the work of Gloucestershire's Vision 21. That local project is somewhat unusual in being co-ordinated by a local charity—Rendezvous—but it has won the full participation and support of local authorities in the county.
It shows that there is no single template for success, but that Local Agenda 21 is strongest when it grows from a base of local commitment and enthusiasm. Indeed, the Gloucestershire model will be just one of a number of varied approaches to producing Local Agenda 21 strategies, which will be highlighted in the new guidance being produced by the Local Government Association in the early autumn.
Equally commendable work is taking place in many other places. Obviously, I have not time to mention them all, but some inspiring examples are given in the Local Government Management Board's review of the first five years of Local Agenda 21 in the UK and in the case studies that we are jointly funding to disseminate best practice. For example, in Reading, the borough council has teamed up with the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Community Education Development Centre to focus on achieving community empowerment. Training, collaboration and increased access to local decision-making processes are empowering local people and groups to deal with quality-of-life issues that are identified locally.
Plymouth's young person's Agenda 21 encourages the young people of Plymouth to make themselves heard in the local decision-making process. There are 32 members from 15 schools, aged from three to 15. The project builds leadership and communication skills, and enables members to be more proactive in their local environment.
The Building Blocks project in Hackney, co-ordinated by Groundwork, aims to improve the well-being of people living in housing estates across Hackney. Partnerships with residents and tenants' associations have developed strategies for involving young people and improving housing estate environments.
The Bradford business and environment support team is a widely acclaimed model, which shows how a local authority can reduce the cumulative environmental impact of the small business sector. It is promoting sound environmental management, making the small business community in that area much more sustainable.
There are also community enterprises—which I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned—and initiatives such as local exchange and trading systems. People are doing something about organic food, cycling, recycling, self-build and energy projects, and there are pioneers such as the Centre for Alternative Technology. Those offer inspiring glimpses of a new path, in which the social and environmental strands of sustainability. far from being opposed to each other, each hold the key to the achievement of the other. There are other leaders in developing local strategies and indicators in Lancashire and west Devon.
At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend called on the Government to respond to some specific issues. I am delighted to be able to continue in the collaborative and co-operative spirit that he set. We share his concern to promote active citizenship. Our proposals in the local democracy and community leadership consultation paper are aimed at producing precisely that reinvigoration of local democracy.
The most successful Local Agenda 21 schemes are helping to achieve just that, by promoting discussion groups and other means of achieving dialogue with local

people, and encouraging collaborative projects with all sections of the community. We must certainly keep in mind the need to keep grant systems as simple as possible, while ensuring that public money is allocated fairly and properly, and that we spend resources in the most effective way. We welcome any suggestions for achieving that.
Our proposals for improving local government are also designed to meet my hon. Friend's point about improving the delivery of public services. I cannot promise that the amount of legislation and the impetus for change will reduce, because, since we are a new Government, there are many things that we need to change—and our manifesto commits us to that. We recognise, however, the upheaval and work load that such change can bring, and are alive to the need to set up new frameworks and systems that help deliver our policies at national and local level in the most effective way.
Best value aims to encourage local authorities to find ways in which to deliver services at the quality and cost that most effectively meet the aspirations of local people. I believe that Local Agenda 21 offers the means for councils to take a corporate and holistic approach to the delivery of services, and to encourage effective training and staff management programmes throughout the authority. That meets my hon. Friend's third call, for capacity building.
As for my hon. Friend's final point about helping to develop a regional identity for Local Agenda 21, I am pleased that our Government offices for the regions are now getting much more involved than they were in the past. Sustainable development objectives are being built into their management strategies, and into the agreements they have with central Government on the services they provide. As I have already said, they are holding seminars over the next six months or so to offer practical guidance on producing and implementing effective Local Agenda 21 strategies.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, Britain will never be a modern, forward-looking country if it is a place whose beauty, character, air and rivers are polluted, defaced and contaminated. Building a modern Britain means seeking new solutions to new social, economic and environmental challenges—not just so that future generations have a planet that is still habitable, but so that all of us going about our lives today can improve our quality of life. That will include working with business to ensure that our companies and industries can take advantage of the huge opportunities that markets for new technologies offer.
That is all about recognising that we will succeed only if we work together. Individuals, businesses, communities and central and local government must all act if we are to meet those significant new challenges. I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this important debate, and I wish him and the Local Agenda 21 strategy in Gloucester even more success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve midnight.